I tried locking a port with "pkg lock", which apparently succeeded:
test2:/tmp# pkg lock -l
Currently locked packages:
I then edited the /usr/ports/dns/bind99/Makefile to show a hypothetical 9.9.9P7:
test2:/usr/ports/dns/bind99# diff Makefile.bak Makefile
< ISCVERSION= 9.9.9-P6
> ISCVERSION= 9.9.9-P7
I then did a "portupgrade -a":
test2:/tmp# portupgrade -a
[Reading data from pkg(8) ... - 326 packages found - done]
---> Upgrading 'bind99-9.9.9P6' to 'bind99-9.9.9P7' (dns/bind99)
---> Building '/usr/ports/dns/bind99'
===> Cleaning for bind99-9.9.9P7
===> License ISCL accepted by the user
===> Found saved configuration for bind99-9.9.9
===> bind99-9.9.9P7 depends on file: /usr/local/sbin/pkg - found
This is with the latest pkg version:
test2:/tmp# pkg -v
This is on a recent 10-STABLE amd64:
test2:/tmp# uname -a
FreeBSD test2.glaver.org 10.3-STABLE FreeBSD 10.3-STABLE #0 r313280: Sun Feb 5
05:06:43 EST 2017 email@example.com:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC amd64
Am I doing something wrong? If so, what is the proper method to prevent portupgrade from updating a particular port? In the old days, there was a way to set "Package held by user" or somesuch in /etc/make.conf, but I forget what it was.
[Note: I filed this under "Package Infrastructure" rather than against ports-mgmt/pkg. If it is more appropriate there, feel free to assign it.]
This looks like a portupgrade thing.
(In reply to Mathieu Arnold from comment #1)
Do we need to request someone to look at this? It was reassigned to portupgrade > 30 days ago.
(In reply to Terry Kennedy from comment #2)
Again, can we get someone to look at this?
over to maintainer