On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 07:56:33PM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 07:49:10PM -0800, James Long wrote:
> >
> > ===> xorg-clients-6.8.2_1 depends on package: xterm>0 - not found
> >
> > and investigated the Makefile to find why the odd package
> > name of "xterm>0".
>
> Looks as if the thing to do would have been to run "pkgdb -F" and delete
> that dependency.
Again, at that time, xorg-clients was not installed, thus
that dependency was not in the package database. Notice
that the portupgrade output with that "xterm>0" line is
a "portupgrade -N" invocation, to install a new port, not
to upgrade an existing port. I always welcome and try to
learn from corrections, but I can't see that pkgdb -F would
be able to remove a dependency for a port that is not (yet)
installed.
That dependency is actually verbatim in the Makefile, I quote:
RUN_DEPENDS= xterm>0:${PORTSDIR}/x11/xterm
Hence my patch. Or if the above syntax is correct, perhaps
someone can point me towards an explanation of the syntax found
in that RUN_DEPENDS= line for my edification. Once I removed
the ">0" from the Makefile, and since portupgrade had already
built (but failed to install) xorg-clients, I was able to
simply "make install" in the xorg-clients ports directory,
and all the previously-built stuff got installed, along
with xterm-206_1.
I'm just asking someone (my original post cc'ed $MAINTAINER)
to review the accuracy of that RUN_DEPENDS line. portupgrade
certainly seems to parse the ">0" as part of the port name,
rather than as some sort of conditional operator.
Regards,
Jim
>
> Peace,
> david
> --
> David H. Wolfskill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Prediction is difficult, especially if it involves the future. -- Niels Bohr
>
> See http://www.catwhisker.org/~david/publickey.gpg for public key.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
