portupgrade failure

[Mark Linimon]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:13:36PM -0500, Robert Huff wrote:
> The maintainer, ruby@, is aware of this; a check of the PR
> database shows multiple open PRs, none critical but many serious
> going back six months and more.

As an aside, the Severity and Priority fields have been so often abused
as to have become meaningless.  Although I still try to groom the db
for "critical" ones, and thus try to get those some attention, I really
don't think the committers pay much attention.  (In general I think
those should be reserved for "data corruption" and "security".)

The longer-term solution is to remove those as user-settable fields.

> This hard to understand given portupgrade is the recommended upgrade
> tool.

Once the individual who was working on it gave it up to the mailing
list, it became one of those "everyone is responsible so no one is
responsible" problems.  I don't have a recommended fix for this.

Having said that, I have a ports tree as of a month ago and portupgrade
was working ok for me.  I don't have the cycles to go figure out where
it fails to be able to fix it, sorry.

mcl