ports back channel Re: perl5.16->5.18

Russell L. Carter rcarter at pinyon.org
Sat Nov 29 03:47:23 UTC 2014

I'm going to top post here, using my last message, appended,
as an example.

So the ports crew are to be commended for the tremendous work
they are doing, it's difficult to see how they could do more.

The number of commits/week are awesome, and the rate of change
is terrific.  I think it is awesome, and necessary.

But two episodes, one which seems really really minor, and one
which is definitely major, I think are symptoms of a process

The little major one is, a perl5 upgrade should not require
rebuilding ~2/3 of the ports tree.  Maybe I'm off a bit, but
I don't think by a material amount.  This turns out to be the
minor problem.  I don't actually care, as long as the installs
respect my configs, have at it.  It just spends an awful lot
of cpu time doing, what?  Updating a version database?

The big major one is what seems tiny.  I saw the pinentry
changes coming through (when installed) and ignored them,
expecting that this would BE DONE RIGHT. It was not.  I have
spent an hour on it, and the result is that I now believe
that gnupg and all it's derived (packaged) systems are
unreliable on FreeBSD and I have disabled them.

I don't deny that the possibility exists that the fix
is trivial:  that's not the point.  The point is that to regain
painless access to the entry into the security domain many (few?)
rely on, I now have to search for this (hopefully) trivial fix.

You absolutely cannot break this because there are vulnerable
people in the field.  Maybe you say they should never update,
but, what happens on a compromise?

So these decisions are getting made outside of freebsd-ports.
Where are they getting made?  I am uninterested in chiming in
except on something like pinentry.

With best regards,

On 11/28/14 16:49, Russell L. Carter wrote:
> Hash: SHA256
> On 11/28/14 16:31, Kevin Oberman wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Russell L. Carter
>> <rcarter at pinyon.org> wrote:
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
>>> Greetings, So pkg wants to upgrade perl to 5.18.  It appears that
>>> due to conflicts with existing 5.16 binaries, this requires
>>> deinstalling 224 ports, including xorg, and all that implies.  I
>>> see a lot of things like python libs(!) nuked as collateral
>>> damage
>>> Am I missing something?  Is the following procedure my only
>>> option?
>>> 1. pkg remove perl5 (and basically the installed system,
>>> including xorg)
>>> 2. pkg install perl5
>>> 3. pkg install ${224 ports}
>>> Thanks, Russell
>> Have you read the instructions in /usr/ports/UPDATING? You should
>> have done: # pkg upgrade -f This will upgrade (re-install) a LOT of
>> packages, but should not nuke
> Ah, ok, thanks.  I see now that it wants to reinstall 645 ports.
> I take it I should not be too concerned about this message, repeated
> five times, proceeding the "The following 689 packages will be
> affected"?
> pkg: sqlite error while executing UPDATE packages SET
> name=SPLIT_UID('name', ?1), origin=SPLIT_UID('origin', ?1) WHERE
> name=SPLIT_UID('name', ?2) AND origin=SPLIT_UID('origin', ?2); in file
> pkg_jobs.c:1484: UNIQUE constraint failed: packages.origin, packages.name
> I generate the packages via poudriere, if it matters.
> Regards,
> Russell
>> anything. "pkg remove perl5" will, as you said, nuke most of your
>> system as it will delete every package that depends on perl5.16. To
>> remove a single package, use the '-f' option, but that is not the
>> right answer when upgrading.
>> -- Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To
>> unsubscribe, send any mail to
>> "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
> Version: GnuPG v2
> vSvqbdWgCpyQLMY5UwQp/o3KdB2fsJB1Ghkn39+X2j2nviUljXJsNWBHfUWOvNyi
> vgBuxQuNg5GE52bJjtdZ1Tu3MvYjVjxukexDvQX9ZWCRdTWg9xv/GRFVxUcPZ335
> HZxR62on6Udg5xHXvEoFafyOJo96/+qfLpzHdUWn6tbUSswlUFR3XSy9r3fdO4ft
> Uou3Sl7lvS2qEYs0WpGHGDvCi9CONtVueF17CMk/sffSKxAC5ITqnDBCIA28i99n
> UZEUfq6V261mywHZzciN3sM6qeq+oCh6abcOe4NfTv7/yDEtu+4eZveopsnlbqLR
> EMzMxsud7ThUv4zJirxcsQEXYAMuqZlH/4UhFVm34cGMGOETvhY853m+YS5uje00
> GoP8D2g+h/tGUfrtMWj+8w9Rlnyep1F8QdmcgVfXd2k5GUCsUlU10YJdLKu6YfvM
> ZhUd2/bnfZD/GuwIntoLaInlEzMtBqff1si58vwtKkeXcTNVWItfTbkHgydokpch
> 9+cghrQrfnvlGpifOJ3dzK7qs2iXOMH+nRXuSyFECedp3esFRftyaRYm7polFBVy
> qiCg9jQ8K9EvFQAqfK1EEJpKohp0spK7HmHEaYaQixQNbeGGSbG4SWYyTGPWEC5+
> Mv5tlcBAHrdIUo+iL5ti
> =hWak
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list