Re: Major error when trying to portupgrade on latest -current system/ports.

From: Matt Smith <matt_at_xtaz.net>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:32:13 +0000
Matt Smith wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> This morning I updated two machines to the latest -current and the ports 
> system was cvsup'd at the same time. However I have something odd going 
> on I wondered if you could point me in the right direction with?
> 
> On one machine everything is working perfectly. I just ran portupgrade 
> -rai and it's run through perfectly normally. However on the other 
> machine I get this shown below.
> 
> Any idea what could be screwed up or wrong or need rebuilding etc?
> 
> I would normally think that something like /usr/ports/Mk/* has been 
> corrupted but the second machine is using the same ports tree over an 
> NFS mount and is working fine.
> 
> uname -a:
> FreeBSD tao.xtaz.net 5.2-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT #0: Wed Feb  4 
> 12:54:43 GMT 2004     root_at_tao.xtaz.net:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/TAO  i386
> 
> libmap.conf:
> libc_r.so.5                     libpthread.so.1
> libc_r.so                       libpthread.so
> libkse.so.1                     libpthread.so.1
> libkse.so                       libpthread.so
> 
> root_at_tao[portupgrade]$ portupgrade -rai
> --->  Session started at: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 14:05:33 +0000
> "/usr/ports/Mk/bsd.python.mk", line 147: warning: String comparison 
> operator should be either == or !=
> "/usr/ports/Mk/bsd.python.mk", line 147: Malformed conditional 
> (!empty(_PYTHON_VERSION_MINIMUM) && (  ${_PYTHON_VERSION} < 
> ${_PYTHON_VERSION_MINIMUM}))

<snip>

I have fixed this temporarily by changing the libmap.conf to the 
following in libmap.conf:

#libc_r.so.5                     libpthread.so.1
#libc_r.so                       libpthread.so
#libkse.so.1                     libpthread.so.1
#libkse.so                       libpthread.so
libpthread.so.1                  libc_r.so.5
libpthread.so                    libc_r.so

So it is something to do with KSE. Tough I have the same libmap.conf on 
both boxes so I'm a little confused as to why it works fine on one and 
not on the other.

Any idea?

Matt.
Received on Wed Feb 04 2004 - 06:32:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:41 UTC