The /etc/installurl file is not present on either of my 'current'
systems. Reading the man pages, it looks to me like installurl is
related to the new syspatch facility, which I believe is for tracking
the STABLE branch. As I said, I'm running CURRENT, so if I've got all
this right, the fact that /etc/installurl isn't present on my systems
is not surprising.

Also, if you look at the pkg_add man page, PKG_PATH is documented
without any mention that it is deprecated.

I'm pretty sure I can work around this problem by building the rust
port, though I think it takes quite a while to do this. But I'm still
puzzled that a 'current' package would be looking for a libc version
newer than that supplied by the latest snapshot.

On 5 May 2017 at 19:47, Kapfhammer, Stefan <sk...@skapf.de> wrote:
> Hello Donald,
>
> PKG_PATH is deprecated since 6.1-RELEASE.
>
> Use /etc/installurl instead.
>
> https://man.openbsd.org/installurl
>
>
> Freundliche Grüße / Regards
> -stefan kapfhammer
>   Originalnachricht
> Von: Donald Allen
> Gesendet: Freitag, 5. Mai 2017 20:16
> An: OpenBSD general usage list
> Betreff: Version skew?
>
>
> I am running current on an amd64 system. I updated the system from the
> latest (5/4) snapshot this morning, downloaded from the Alberta site.
> But I am (still) unable to install the following package:
>
>  doas /usr/sbin/pkg_add rust
> quirks-2.319 signed on 2017-05-03T14:53:25Z
> Can't install rust-1.16.0 because of libraries
> |library c.89.5 not found
> | /usr/lib/libc.so.89.3 (system): minor is too small
> | /usr/lib/libc.so.89.4 (system): minor is too small
> Direct dependencies for rust-1.16.0 resolve to gcc-libs-4.9.4p4
> Full dependency tree is gcc-libs-4.9.4p4
>
> This is with
>
> PKG_PATH=https://ftp.OpenBSD.org/pub/OpenBSD/snapshots/packages/amd64
>
> The /etc/doas.conf uses the KEEPENV option for /usr/sbin/pkg_add.
>
> What I am not clear about is why a package would require a library
> with a greater minor version (and presumably newer) than that supplied
> by the most recent snapshot? If someone could explain this I'd
> appreciate it.
>
> /Don Allen
>

Reply via email to