When a port is installed (portinstall or portupgrade -N), and a variation of a dependency is installed (e.g. apache+mod_ssl-1.3.41+2.8.31 as opposed to apache13), portupgrade/portinstall fails to recognize this and tries to build the basic version of the dependency (apache13 in the example above). Other examples include: sendmail+tls+sasl2 make install from the ports collection works fine. How-To-Repeat: have apache+mod_ssl installed and try: portinstall wordpress-mu or have sendmail+tls+sasl2 and try: portinstall squirrelmail
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->sem Over to maintainer (via the GNATS Auto Assign Tool)
Responsible Changed From-To: sem->ruby sem@ has turned over maintainership of portupgrade to the ruby mailing list.
Responsible Changed From-To: ruby->pgollucci I will take it
Responsible Changed From-To: pgollucci->freebsd-ports-bugs going to have enotime for the next 2 weeks, sorry
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->ruby Over to maintainer(s).
State Changed From-To: open->suspended This is a general problem of the FreeBSD ports collection, not specific to portupgrade
Responsible Changed From-To: ruby->freebsd-ports-bugs Over to maintainer.
State Changed From-To: suspended->closed It's been documented in UPDATING (20080208) that this case needs special handling in pkgtools.conf via ALT_DEPENDS.
First, just a correction: I think, it is actually ALT_PKGDEP (not ALT_DEPENDS). Second, it is nice that that mechanism is there. It would be nice now, if there was a default list of alternative dependencies provided as a part of the ports collection (alongside INDEX, or something like that). This way it would get updated with the ports collection evolving. This "feature suggestion" goes beyond just "portupgrade", and would be a greate improvement for the entire ports collection. So, I am not sure what is the best way of submitting it, - so I hope somebody can route it correctly.