On 10/10/2011 2:13 PM, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 09:33:41 +0100
Mike Clarke wrote:
On Sunday 09 October 2011, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
I assume you mean "pkg_upgrade" (not "upgrade_pkg")?
See the "ENVIRONMENT" section of the man page. All of the pkg_*
tools are consiste
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 09:33:41 +0100
Mike Clarke wrote:
> On Sunday 09 October 2011, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
>
> > I assume you mean "pkg_upgrade" (not "upgrade_pkg")?
> >
> > See the "ENVIRONMENT" section of the man page. All of the pkg_*
> > tools are consistent in how they reference these var
On Sunday 09 October 2011, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote:
> I assume you mean "pkg_upgrade" (not "upgrade_pkg")?
>
> See the "ENVIRONMENT" section of the man page. All of the pkg_*
> tools are consistent in how they reference these variables.
There isn't a pkg_upgrade in the base system and I'm not a
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 04:35:11 -0400
Allen wrote:
[snip]
> I noticed a little while ago I had "upgrade_pkg" and since I have 0
> Ports (I don't need to squeeze out extra performance, I'm not running
> a Server, so I only compile when I have to, and I like Binaries more
> so I generally install my
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 10:23:46PM -0400, Joe wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 05:05:28PM -0400, Joe wrote:
> >>Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >>>Anyway, retry the binary upgrade as you say.
> >>The binary upgrade started from the 6.0-RELEASE CD-ROM didn't work
> >
> >Wait, you were
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 05:05:28PM -0400, Joe wrote:
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Anyway, retry the binary upgrade as you say.
The binary upgrade started from the 6.0-RELEASE CD-ROM didn't work
Wait, you were trying to update to 6.1-RELEASE using the 6.0-RELEASE
CD-ROM? :)
Yes
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 05:05:28PM -0400, Joe wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >Anyway, retry the binary upgrade as you say.
>
> The binary upgrade started from the 6.0-RELEASE CD-ROM didn't work
Wait, you were trying to update to 6.1-RELEASE using the 6.0-RELEASE
CD-ROM? :)
Kris
pgpiCq50hC5hV.p
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Anyway, retry the binary upgrade as you say.
The binary upgrade started from the 6.0-RELEASE CD-ROM didn't work, but
using 6.1-RELEASE floppies was successful. I peaked at the debug screen
and saw how it gets done: The GENERIC .ko's get put into a separate
directory, t
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 07:51:38AM -0400, Joe wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 08:12:25PM -0400, Joe wrote:
> >>The .ko files have a Nov 3 2005 date, whereas the files in /boot
> >>including the kernel directory have a May 6 2006 date. I take it that
> >>Nov 3 means 6.0-R
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 08:12:25PM -0400, Joe wrote:
The .ko files have a Nov 3 2005 date, whereas the files in /boot
including the kernel directory have a May 6 2006 date. I take it that
Nov 3 means 6.0-RELEASE since the announcement was done on Nov 4. So, I
guess I'm b
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 08:12:25PM -0400, Joe wrote:
The .ko files have a Nov 3 2005 date, whereas the files in /boot
including the kernel directory have a May 6 2006 date. I take it that
Nov 3 means 6.0-RELEASE since the announcement was done on Nov 4. So, I
guess I'm b
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 08:12:25PM -0400, Joe wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:14:32PM -0400, Joe wrote:
> >>I don't have access to the system right now, but after the sysinstall I
> >>looked at some of the files in /bin and saw that most had a date of May
> >>6, 2006 (
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:14:32PM -0400, Joe wrote:
I don't have access to the system right now, but after the sysinstall I
looked at some of the files in /bin and saw that most had a date of May
6, 2006 (or thereabouts) so I assumed that meant the binary upgrade had
been
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:14:32PM -0400, Joe wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:51:51PM -0400, Joe wrote:
> >> [...]
> >>It failed to update expat however, because it kept looking in the
> >>6.0-RELEASE paths. I presume this is because even though the binary
> >>upgrade
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:51:51PM -0400, Joe wrote:
>> [...]
It failed to update expat however, because it kept looking in the
6.0-RELEASE paths. I presume this is because even though the binary
upgrade of the base to 6.1 went well, uname, etc., think I still have a
6.0
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 04:51:51PM -0400, Joe wrote:
> Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 07:42:43PM -0400, Joe wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>I've read the documentation and it seems there's no pkg_upgrade or
> >>pkg_update, or a way to install an updated/upgraded package. I'd like
> >>to
Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 07:42:43PM -0400, Joe wrote:
Hi,
I've read the documentation and it seems there's no pkg_upgrade or
pkg_update, or a way to install an updated/upgraded package. I'd like
to determine if that is indeed the case.
portupgrade -P or -PP
OK, since
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 07:42:43PM -0400, Joe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've read the documentation and it seems there's no pkg_upgrade or
> pkg_update, or a way to install an updated/upgraded package. I'd like
> to determine if that is indeed the case.
portupgrade -P or -PP
Kris
pgpGNkBQGy4Ip.pgp
D
On Tuesday 30 May 2006 01:42, Joe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've read the documentation and it seems there's no pkg_upgrade or
> pkg_update, or a way to install an updated/upgraded package. I'd like
> to determine if that is indeed the case.
>
> [...]
>
> The documentation mentions portupgrade and portmana
Nope.
pkgdb -F
fixes the package database and removes old entries...
Anthony
On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 17:55, David Bear wrote:
> I've been searching the handbook and can't seem to find what I'm
> looking for regarding upgrading a port. I know there is
> portupgrade... which I'd like to avoid beca
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> Of course, this method does not work if there are any packages/ports
> depending on the port you are upggrading. The pkg_deinstall will fail
> because of the dependencies. I believe a pkg_deinstall -f will forcibly
> remove the pa
On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 12:56, Mike Meyer wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Bear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> > I do have cvsup installed, and can run cvsup to update my ports
> > collection. My question is if I already have a package installed,
> > running cvsup, the make install again for a p
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Bear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> I do have cvsup installed, and can run cvsup to update my ports
> collection. My question is if I already have a package installed,
> running cvsup, the make install again for a preexisting port will mess
> up the pkg-data base right?
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> Of course, this method does not work if there are any packages/ports
> depending on the port you are upggrading. The pkg_deinstall will fail
> because of the dependencies. I believe a pkg_deinstall -f will forcibly
> remove the pa
On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 12:56, Mike Meyer wrote:
> In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Bear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> > I do have cvsup installed, and can run cvsup to update my ports
> > collection. My question is if I already have a package installed,
> > running cvsup, the make install again for a p
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Bear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> I do have cvsup installed, and can run cvsup to update my ports
> collection. My question is if I already have a package installed,
> running cvsup, the make install again for a preexisting port will mess
> up the pkg-data base right?
Nope.
pkgdb -F
fixes the package database and removes old entries...
Anthony
On Tue, 2003-03-18 at 17:55, David Bear wrote:
> I've been searching the handbook and can't seem to find what I'm
> looking for regarding upgrading a port. I know there is
> portupgrade... which I'd like to avoid beca
27 matches
Mail list logo
