[Bug 283755] ports-mgmt/pkg: pkg-upgrade(8) - version comparison new kernel modules ("kmods") failure

2025-01-03 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=283755 --- Comment #4 from Eric --- (in reply to comment #3 ) As shown in the attached debug out, it seems there is definitely a problem with version comparison: drm-61-kmod-6.1.92.1402000_3 is recognised but rejected. -- You are receiving t

Re: "Loader needs to be updated" (azure guest context)

2025-01-03 Thread Edward Sanford Sutton, III
On 12/30/24 10:59, Warner Losh wrote: On Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 8:45 AM void wrote: Hi, context is freebsd amd64 vm on Azure (initially installed via azure marketplace several years ago (12-releng)), and has been upgraded as updates became available with freebsd-update over the years all the way

[Bug 283755] ports-mgmt/pkg: pkg-upgrade(8) - version comparison new kernel modules ("kmods") failure

2025-01-03 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=283755 --- Comment #3 from Eric --- Created attachment 256383 --> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=256383&action=edit debug output from pkg upgrade drm-61-kmod -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list f

Re: "Loader needs to be updated" (azure guest context)

2025-01-03 Thread Warner Losh
On Fri, Jan 3, 2025, 10:15 AM Edward Sanford Sutton, III < mirror...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 12/30/24 10:59, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2024, 8:45 AM void wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> context is > >> > >> freebsd amd64 vm on Azure (initially installed via azure marketplace > >> seve

[Bug 283755] ports-mgmt/pkg: pkg-upgrade(8) - version comparison new kernel modules ("kmods") failure

2025-01-03 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=283755 Mark Millard changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marklmi26-f...@yahoo.com --- Commen

Re: "Loader needs to be updated" (azure guest context)

2025-01-03 Thread void
On Mon, Dec 30, 2024 at 10:59:47AM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: In this context, it's a known false positive. It's too risky to fix in a pX for 13.4, so will be in 13.5 since the fix is already in stable/13. It's just cosmetic, there's no bug it exposes. Thank you for your full explanation. --