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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] || 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 _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"