Can I resume the perl upgrade?

[David Southwell]

On Wednesday 15 April 2009 05:27:37 you wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 08:01:28AM -0700, David Southwell typed:
> > On Tuesday 14 April 2009 05:20:35 Ruben de Groot wrote:
> > > > > Perhaps you should start a new thread.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > Tried that last week to no avail
> > > > So asmy question was vaguely on topic I had hoped someone might be
> > > > able to contribute something useful!!
> > >
> > > If you can send a reply-all to the list, you certainly can send a new
> > > question, can't you? Hijacking threads *is* considered
> > > rude/ignorant/dumb by some.
> > >
> > > That said, Pod::Perldoc seems to be part of perl-5.8.[8-9] on my
> > > systems, so unless you're doing some nonstandard things with this
> > > package, I suggest you just pkg_delete the bsdpan package and get on
> > > with it.
> >
> > Hi Ruben
> >
> > Sorry to get cross with you but it has been clear from your responses
> > that you have not actually troubled to read the detail of what I posted.
> > The origibnal posting refrred to the issue as being one that came as a
> > result of doing something similar to the OP for the thread. There was a
> > second part (relating to getting the info on bsdpan into the DB.
>
> My "responses" ???
> Sorry, but this was my first response to anything you've posted on this
> list.
>
> > a. If you had read carefully you would have found that I have already
> > tried: posting another thread
>
> Tried searching the archives a bit but sorry. What can possibly go wrong
> with sending an new email to questions at freebsd.org? You tried and failed?
> that's pretty weird!
>
> > b. I had already tried pkg_delete without success.
>
> What is the error? Tried pkg_delete -f?
>
> > c. I had tried package_deinstall again without success.
>
> You probably mean pkg_deinstall. What what the error? which options did you
> use?
>
> > d. I am totally puzzled why bsdpan-Pod_Perldoc should be showing a
> > dependency on perl-5.8-9 when I have upgraded to 10.
>
> Ehm, is there maybe something like this in your /etc/make.conf?
>
> # more /etc/make.conf
> # added by use.perl 2008-05-07 04:31:59
> PERL_VER=5.8.9
> PERL_VERSION=5.8.9
>
> When you upgrade to something that's not (yet) in the ports tree, and you
> don't completely know what you're doing, Puzzling Things(TM) might happen.
> Live with it.
>
> Ruben

I do not know what you are on but it is well past time you brought your ports 
tree up to date -- perl5.10 has been in the tree since April 5th. 

[root at dns1 /usr/ports/lang]# ls -l |grep perl
drwxr-xr-x  3 root  wheel   512 Jan 30 04:48 eperl
drwxr-xr-x  2 root  wheel   512 Jul  2  2008 linux-libperl5.8
drwxr-xr-x  3 root  wheel   512 Mar  4  2007 pecl-perl
drwxr-xr-x  4 root  wheel   512 Apr 14 14:56 perl5.10
drwxr-xr-x  3 root  wheel   512 Mar 11 01:49 perl5.6
drwxr-xr-x  3 root  wheel   512 Mar 26 08:48 perl5.8
drwxr-xr-x  3 root  wheel   512 Apr  9 06:47 ruby-perl


Thanks again.. it seems as though you are not reading things carefully. I do 
not know why but why do you feel the need to snipe - and do so based upon 
incorrect assumptions?

I had previously checked my make.conf to see if it had any hangovers from the 
earlier version in the ports tree but that had been correctly changed during 
the upgrade. 

It reads:
PERL_VERSION=5.10.

Thanks again
David