adam.mclaurin at gmx.net
Thu May 20 00:07:38 PDT 2004
On Thu, 20 May 2004 00:01:36 -0700
Kris Kennaway <kris at obsecurity.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 20, 2004 at 02:55:35AM -0400, Adam McLaurin wrote:
> > -# uname -a
> > FreeBSD jake 5.2.1-RELEASE-p4 FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE-p4 #0: Tue Mar
> > 30
> > 01:07:47 EST 2004 root at jake:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/ESKI i386
> > Why the h*ll did portupgrade try to recompile zsh? I can't think of
> > any
> > logical explanation for this behavior. Perhaps I am missing
> > something
> > simple here; or perhaps I stumbled across a bug in portupgrade (or
> > even
> > ruby) ?
> Is your INDEX out of date? portupgrade assumes it is up-to-date and
> bases its upgrade decisions on the contents. Compare the output of
> portversion and pkg_version.
-# ls -al /usr/ports/INDEX*
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 5089899 May 1 08:57 /usr/ports/INDEX
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 4947853 Mar 15 18:20 /usr/ports/INDEX-5
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 10911744 Apr 6 01:21 /usr/ports/INDEX.db
Looking at http://www.freshports.org/shells/zsh , the zsh port hasn't
been modified since March 23rd, so I should be OK on that front.
And portversion does also report that zsh is up-to-date:
-# portversion -v |grep -i zsh
zsh-4.2.0 = up-to-date with port
"satyam, shivam, sundaram"
More information about the freebsd-ports