On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 07:09:01AM -0700, Max Stalnaker wrote: > thanks for your response. libc is more meaniful to me than c.56.0! > > Now it is true that I had done even a make all on faac using current a few > days ago. I would have hoped that would clear dependency problems like > this. > On the other hand, looking at all the audio/faac files, I just do not see > where > they are version sensitive to this, at least when I looked before I knew to > look for libc stuff. > > In any case, hmm, today, I did a cvs update on the trees and recompiled sys > and > xenocara. > > Now, libc is not something that can be reasonable found with make search > key=libc, but find / -name "libc" does okay and I see a devel port with an > unexpected name which I proceeded to build. make clean package install. > Hmm, > maybe I overwrote a good *system* libc by doing this? > > devel/arc to do devel/arc/libc > > Now I then run out-of-date-update.py a couple of times and what I get is > still > faac #c.56.0->c.57.0. > And it is easy at this point to see many many ports with the same sole > issue > as far as build/out-of-date would be concerned. And my update just does a > clean and skips the rest of the make targets. > > so "faac should be rebuilt/updated", but what this means at this point is > unclear to me. > > Please advise.
libc is in base system, ports don't affect it.
'make repackage' is what you are looking for in this case.
I was thinking myself of a script that would delete all existing built
packages of what is listed by out-of-date, but did not look at that yet.
--
viq
pgponP9O6Kieb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
