portupgrade -o strangeness...

[Josh Tolbert]

On Tue, Jun 12, 2007 at 11:23:34AM +0100, Alex Zbyslaw wrote:
> It doesn't look like what I was suggesting is the issue so it's all 
> moot, but the example I can see:
> 
>    sudo portupgrade -fo devel/bison2 bison
> 
> is different from what I was suggesting:
> 
>    sudo portupgrade -f -o devel/bison2 bison
> 
> which deliberately split -f and -o.  Your original version could reasonably 
> be expected to work, but I have seen software (even written some :-)) which 
> does not correctly parse flags when they are combined ("-fo") especially 
> when one of them also takes an argument. That's not what's happening here, 
> but my suggestion was always a shot in the dark.
> 
> >Anyway, a PR has been filed and the response is, "it's a feature." I'm not
> >sure how it's a feature, but it is. The example I was given looks like 
> >this:
> >
> >$ pkg_version -t 2.3_1 1.75_2,1
> ><
> >
> >I'm guessing it's just doing some odd string comparison instead of breaking
> >the version number apart and handling it with weight on the major version
> >number, etc.
> > 
> >
> I find it bizarre too,  since I don't even understand *why* the version 
> numbers matter in that command line.  You've said "upgrade using 
> devel/bison2" as the origin and it's upgrading using "devel/bison".  I 
> could understand the version number bizarre-matching affecting *whether* 
> portupgrade chooses to upgrade (so requiring -f) but not that it fails 
> to honour the origin you've given.
> 
> The pkg_version comparison is surely just wrong.  The version numbers 
> look correct to me.  Interestingly, if you drop the ,1 from the second 
> version, the answer is correct (on 5.4 anyway).
> 
> $ pkg_version -t 2.3_1 1.75_2
> >
> 
> Or add a comma to the first
> 
> $ pkg_version -t 2.3_1,1 1.75_2,1
> >
> 
> 
> which looks like a bug to me, but maybe there's something non-standard 
> about that version number.  Blowed if I can see what; there are plenty 
> of examples like it in my installed packages.
> 
> There's definitely a bug in something.
> 
> Software, bah.
> 
> --Alex
> 
> PS Presumably deinstalling bison and installing bison2 worked OK as a 
> workaround?

I didn't try separate options for -f and -o. I've always just ran
single-letter options together and never had any issues. I'd be surprised if
that were the problem.

I ended up going back to portupgrade from portupgrade-devel and everything
seemed to work fine.

Thanks,

Josh
-- 
Josh Tolbert
hemi at puresimplicity.net  ||  http://www.puresimplicity.net/~hemi/

Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature, nor
do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger
is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. Life is either
a daring adventure, or nothing.
    -- Helen Keller