Package version problem with portupgrade(1)

kstewart kstewart at
Thu Sep 2 08:49:27 PDT 2004

On Thursday 02 September 2004 01:45 am, Philip Payne wrote:
> > > Well, png is up to png-1.2.5_8 and if you did a recent cvsup and
> > > recreated your INDEXs, that is what you should be seeing.
> >
> > OK, portupgrade(1) _is_ looking for 1.2.5_8 but it is trying to get it
> > from
> >
> > where the version of png is 1.2.5_2, so how to resolve the conflict?
> > Seems to me that portupgrade(1) needs to be getting the packages from
> > packages-4-stable/All instead?
> >
> > > Staying behind is a good way to end up with a security
> >
> > black hole :).
> >
> > Precisely.
> >
> > > A cvsup of ports-all and a portsdb -uU should be a good way to keep
> > > your system current.
> >
> > Will that change where portupgrade(1) tries to get the packages from?
> I believe the package updates will lag behind the ports source update i.e.
> if you use portupgrade -PP and use packages only there will be the
> occasional port that does not have a package available. I'm not sure how
> long the lag is... I guess different for different ports.
> I think you'll just have to accept a slight lag on when you can update
> certain ports.
> If this is not the real error I'm sure someone will correct me.

His PACKAGESITE environment variable is set to a wrong location. I think that 
he needs to set it using something like


or his favorite mirror, as all one line. and then run portupgrade -PPa. It 
defaults to the 4.9 release packages and they never change. I have only used 
PACKAGESITE once and that was to update KDE. The sites were so busy that my 
computer would build it almost as fast as I could download it.


> Thanks,
> Phil.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions at mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe at"

Kent Stewart
Richland, WA
Support the Bison at

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list