On 2014.11.25 08:56, Gary Palmer wrote: > On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 08:35:12AM -0600, Andrew Berg wrote: >> On 2014.11.25 08:26, Gary Palmer wrote: >> > Since I assume most of the packages that depend on the old >> > x264-0.136.2358_4 >> > depend on the library rather than the CLI command, is there any harm in >> > doing >> > >> > portmaster -o multimedia/libx264 x264-0.136.2358_4 >> > >> > instead? That way the dependancies are kept (mostly) correct >> Don't do that. The dependency change has been properly handled, and those >> ports >> know to use multimedia/libx264. > > If you followed the instructions in the mail I replied to, the installed > packages are left with a dependency on x264 and not libx264. > > The real problem is that the few times I tried to use automated update > methods ran into problems because x264 was already installed and libx264 > couldn't be installed because they conflicted. Nothing seems to be > in UPDATING or MOVED so the upgrades break. There needs to be a better > way of handling these cases. As I have stated already in this thread, I am trying to get an UPDATING entry committed:
x264 was split into the application and its library. If an application that uses libx264 is updated before x264 itself, multimedia/libx264 will conflict with the old x264 package. Delete the existing x264: # pkg delete x264 And then install the updated x264 and/or upgrade the other applications that depend on libx264. This is my fault for not testing upgrades via ports when creating the patch. _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
