Trouble with upgrading ports...

[Michael C. Shultz]

On Sunday 20 February 2005 09:00 pm, Eric Schuele wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am having difficulty upgrading ports on all my freebsd 5.3-stable
> machines.  They all have been cvsup'd and built within the last few
> days.
>
> But for the last week, maybe two... something strange has been (not)
> happening.  Portversion no longer correctly reports what ports need
> updating.  But if I do a 'portupgrade -arR', the appropriate things
> get upgraded.... and then later it says they 'succeed' the port!?! 
> It feels like the INDEX is not getting update at all, or something.
>
> I have a script (attached) to update my system sources.  I then
> portupgrade, or buildworld whenever I feel like it.  It has ben
> working fine for quite sometime.  Maybe the script is bad and I was
> bound to mess my machines up.  Not sure.
>
> Either way... If I delete my INDEX and then 'make fetchindex'...
> things don't resolve themselves.  I'm really not sure where the
> problem is.  I was hoping someone could point me in the right
> direction.  Below is an example of the behavior I am seeing.  This is
> happening on three machines (all using the same scripts... and me).
>
> fangorn# cd /usr/ports
> fangorn# rm INDEX-5
> fangorn# rm INDEX.db
> fangorn# make fetchindex
>   INDEX-5.bz2                                   100% of  614 kB  366
> kBps fangorn# portsdb -u
> [Updating the portsdb <format:bdb1_btree> in /usr/ports ... - 12376
> port entries found
> .........1000.........2000.........3000.........4000.........5000....
>.....6000.........7000.........8000.........9000.........10000........
>.11000.........12000... ..... done]
> fangorn# portversion -v -L "="
> ImageMagick-6.1.9.4         >  succeeds port (port has 6.1.9.2)
> bitstream-vera-1.10_1       >  succeeds port (port has 1.10)
> docbook-xsl-1.68.1          >  succeeds port (port has 1.68.0)
> dri-6.2.1,2                 >  succeeds port (port has 6.2_2,2)
> emacs-21.3_4                >  succeeds port (port has 21.3_3)
> gnutls-1.0.24_1             >  succeeds port (port has 1.0.24)
> libfpx-1.2.0.11             >  succeeds port (port has 1.2.0.9_1)
> fangorn# portupgrade -narR
> --->  Session started at: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:25:46 -0600
> ** No need to upgrade 'dagrab-0.3.5_1' (>= dagrab-0.3.5_1). (specify
> -f to force)
> <snip>
> ** No need to upgrade 'gkrellm-2.2.4_1' (>= gkrellm-2.2.4_1).
> (specify -f to force)
> --->  Listing the results (+:done / -:ignored / *:skipped / !:failed)
> 	- audio/dagrab (dagrab-0.3.5_1)
> 	- textproc/xmlcatmgr (xmlcatmgr-2.2)
> 	<snip>
> 	- graphics/imlib2 (imlib2-1.1.2_1)
> 	+ devel/libast (libast-0.5_1)      <---  This DOES need upgrade
> 	- textproc/jade (jade-1.2.1_9)
> 	- www/firefox (firefox-1.0_7,1)
> 	- x11-wm/fluxconf (fluxconf-0.9.7_1)
> 	- sysutils/gkrellm2 (gkrellm-2.2.4_1)
> --->  Packages processed: 1 done, 168 ignored, 0 skipped and 0 failed
> --->  Session ended at: Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:26:18 -0600 (consumed
> 00:00:32) fangorn# exit
>
> Everything that portversion reports as suceeding the ports, DOES. 
> But it shouldn't since the script updates the ports and THEN upgrades
> those installed.  Portupgrade correctly realizes that devel/libast
> requires an upgrade... portversion does not.
>
> I've looked in the past posts, handbook, man pages, UPDATING, various
> READMEs.... but really not sure what I'm looking for at this point.
>
>    Thanks in advance.

sysutils/portmanager can upgrade those ports and does not need the INDEX
file to do so.

-Mike