portupgrade/make install problem.

[Daryl Chance]

cool.  thanks for the patch and the info.  Would it be
fine for me to sync the 4.8 source and just install
the pkg_install utils? (pkg_*). I know the question
was asked previously, but I didn't see any answer.  I
assume that it would be fine, but I don't want to
screw something up if I do install them.

PS:  For some reason, yahoo has put your last 2 (this
and the previous email) into, basically, the spam
folder.  Very wierd.

--- Michael Edenfield <kutulu at kutulu.org> wrote:
> * Daryl Chance <chancedj at yahoo.com> [030714 10:47]:
> > Thanks.  I just saw the posts in the archive, but
> not
> > a patch like Mr Edenfield posted.  I would like to
> > propose a patch of my own.  Yours looks like it
> would
> > work well, but it negates the FORCE_PKG_REGISTER
> env
> > and NO_PKG_REGISTER env (If I follow the code
> > correctly).  My patch just modifies the pkg_info
> > command to only add -O if the OSVERSION >= 470000.
> 
> > It's not tested since I don't know the language
> syntax
> > for whever code that is :).  So please, feel free
> to
> > fix it.
> 
> The problem is, that without the -O the entire check
> fails.  The -O 
> parameter to pkg_info takes a port origin
> (basically, the relative 
> directory from /usr/ports of the port) and returns a
> list of packages 
> that were originally installed from there.  Without
> -O, 
>  
>   pkg_info -q <port origin>
> 
> just returns an error that it couldn't find the
> package.
> 
> I did the patch in a hurry, and don't have anything
> before 4.8 to test 
> on, but the logic seemed good to me.  We don't want
> to do this check 
> if either FORCE_PKG_REGISTER or NO_PKG_REGISTER are
> defined, and can't 
> if OSVERSION is not at least 470000.  I'll try to
> find a machine to 
> drop 4.6 on and test today, unless someone beats me
> to it.
> 
> --Mike
> 
> 

> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/pgp-signature 



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com