# Dependency inconsistencies following new install



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 12, 2010)

I just successfully re-installed the base system, making sure to reformat the partition so that there were no problems carried over from a previous install. I followed that by

[CMD=]# portsnap fetch extract
# portsnap fetch update[/CMD]

Then I installed *portupgrade* from my ports collection, followed by:

[CMD=]# portsdb -Fu
# portversion -vl'<'
[/CMD]

I then get "all equals signs" in my versions.
The first program that I want to add is

[CMD=]# pkg_add -r xorg[/CMD]

This is where the problem arises. Here is the tail of the output:


```
pkg_add: warning: package 'xorg-drivers-7.5' requires 'perl-5.10.1_1', but 'perl-5.10.1_3' is installed
pkg_add: warning: package 'xorg-drivers-7.5' requires 'm4-1.4.14_1,1', but 'm4-1.4.15,1' is installed
pkg_add: warning: package 'xorg-drivers-7.5' requires 'gettext-0.18_1', but 'gettext-0.18.1.1' is installed
pkg_add: warning: package 'xorg-7.5' requires 'perl-5.10.1_1', but 'perl-5.10.1_3' is installed
pkg_add: warning: package 'xorg-7.5' requires 'm4-1.4.14_1,1', but 'm4-1.4.15,1' is installed
pkg_add: warning: package 'xorg-7.5' requires 'gettext-0.18_1', but 'gettext-0.18.1.1' is installed
```

Also, when I now check *portversion* I get a long list of the new programs which are declared to need upgrading. 

What am I doing wrong?


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 12, 2010)

Nothing much. This is the consequence of mixing ports and packages. Packages are always behind ports, so they're compiled against older versions of dependencies than are in the ports tree. The installed package signals that and tells you your versions are out of whack. Either accept that (most packages work fine with slightly newer installed dependencies), or switch to either a ports-only or a package-only installation.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 12, 2010)

Thanks for the confirmation, but now I am not sure how to proceed. Because a number of programs can only be installed as ports, it seems like the only way of making a coherent system is to exclusively use ports. Although it will obviously take a very long time to install a system, I am OK with that. So, based on that, I just tried to upgrade *xorg* by going to the /usr/ports/x11/xorg directory and doing

`# make deinstall
# make reinstall`

which didn't cause any errors so I thought it would be fine. Now when I do

`# portupgrade -na`

it shows everything up to date, but when I do

`# portversion -vl'<'`

it shows a considerable number of ports which need updating.

I would like to get off on the right foot before I continue installing. Is it possible to uninstall *xorg* and bring it up to date?


----------



## wblock@ (Dec 12, 2010)

OJ said:
			
		

> Now when I do
> 
> `# portupgrade -na`
> 
> ...



With portupgrade, you should update the database and index file after updating the ports tree with portsnap or csup.
`# portsdb -Fu`

See Upgrading FreeBSD Ports.

Then try portversion again.  I use portupgrade-devel, but don't know if there are any problems with the older non-devel port.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 12, 2010)

wblock said:
			
		

> With portupgrade, you should update the database and index file after updating the ports tree with portsnap or csup.
> `# portsdb -Fu`
> 
> See Upgrading FreeBSD Ports.
> ...



I am actually following you article on it (keeping it open in another window).  Yes, I did do the portsdb command, and the result is the same. Just to be sure, I repeated the sequence right now and there is no change.


----------



## wblock@ (Dec 12, 2010)

OJ said:
			
		

> I am actually following you article on it (keeping it open in another window).  Yes, I did do the portsdb command, and the result is the same. Just to be sure, I repeated the sequence right now and there is no change.



Please show your portversion output.  There have been problems with some of the portsnap servers recently that might be a factor.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 12, 2010)

wblock said:
			
		

> Please show your portversion output.  There have been problems with some of the portsnap servers recently that might be a factor.



Here it is:


```
# portversion -vl'<'
bison-2.4.1_1,1             <  needs updating (port has 2.4.3,1)
cairo-1.8.10_1,1            <  needs updating (port has 1.10.0_3,1)
consolekit-0.4.1_3          <  needs updating (port has 0.4.3)
dbus-1.2.24_1               <  needs updating (port has 1.4.0)
dbus-glib-0.86_1            <  needs updating (port has 0.88)
freetype2-2.3.12            <  needs updating (port has 2.4.3)
gio-fam-backend-2.24.1_1    <  needs updating (port has 2.26.1)
glib-2.24.1_1               <  needs updating (port has 2.26.1_1)
gobject-introspection-0.6.14  <  needs updating (port has 0.9.12)
hal-0.5.14_8                <  needs updating (port has 0.5.14_10)
libSM-1.1.1_1,1             <  needs updating (port has 1.1.1_3,1)
libX11-1.3.3,1              <  needs updating (port has 1.3.3_1,1)
libpciaccess-0.11.0         <  needs updating (port has 0.12.0)
libxcb-1.6                  <  needs updating (port has 1.7)
libxml2-2.7.7               <  needs updating (port has 2.7.8_1)
pciids-20091229             <  needs updating (port has 20101107)
pcre-8.02                   <  needs updating (port has 8.10)
pixman-0.16.6               <  needs updating (port has 0.18.4)
pkg-config-0.23_1           <  needs updating (port has 0.25_1)
png-1.4.3                   <  needs updating (port has 1.4.4)
polkit-0.96_2               <  needs updating (port has 0.99)
python26-2.6.5              <  needs updating (port has 2.6.6)
sessreg-1.0.5               <  needs updating (port has 1.0.5_1)
xinit-1.2.0                 <  needs updating (port has 1.2.0_1)
xterm-258                   <  needs updating (port has 261)
```


----------



## wblock@ (Dec 12, 2010)

The updated versions agree with what I see here, so at least portversion isn't lying.  What does the 'portupgrade -na' output show?


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 12, 2010)

wblock said:
			
		

> The updated versions agree with what I see here, so at least portversion isn't lying.  What does the 'portupgrade -na' output show?



I'm assuming the first part is not relevant here.


```
# portupgrade -na

. . . snip . . .

--->  Upgrading 'consolekit-0.4.1_3' to 'consolekit-0.4.3' (sysutils/consolekit)
OK? [no]
--->  Upgrade of sysutils/consolekit ended at: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 05:40:58 +0000 (consumed 00:00:00)
--->  ** Upgrade tasks 25: 24 done, 0 ignored, 0 skipped and 0 failed
--->  Upgrade of sysutils/hal started at: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 05:40:59 +0000
--->  Upgrading 'hal-0.5.14_8' to 'hal-0.5.14_10' (sysutils/hal)
OK? [no]
--->  Upgrade of sysutils/hal ended at: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 05:40:59 +0000 (consumed 00:00:00)
--->  ** Upgrade tasks 25: 25 done, 0 ignored, 0 skipped and 0 failed
--->  Listing the results (+:done / -:ignored / *:skipped / !:failed)
        + lang/python26 (python26-2.6.5)
        + devel/pcre (pcre-8.02)
        + devel/pkg-config (pkg-config-0.23_1)
        + textproc/libxml2 (libxml2-2.7.7)
        + devel/glib20 (glib-2.24.1_1)
        + x11/pixman (pixman-0.16.6)
        + devel/gio-fam-backend (gio-fam-backend-2.24.1_1)
        + graphics/png (png-1.4.3)
        + misc/pciids (pciids-20091229)
        + devel/libpciaccess (libpciaccess-0.11.0)
        + print/freetype2 (freetype2-2.3.12)
        + x11/libSM (libSM-1.1.1_1,1)
        + x11/libxcb (libxcb-1.6)
        + x11/libX11 (libX11-1.3.3,1)
        + x11/xterm (xterm-258)
        + devel/dbus (dbus-1.2.24_1)
        + x11/sessreg (sessreg-1.0.5)
        + devel/dbus-glib (dbus-glib-0.86_1)
        + x11/xinit (xinit-1.2.0)
        + graphics/cairo (cairo-1.8.10_1,1)
        + devel/bison (bison-2.4.1_1,1)
        + devel/gobject-introspection (gobject-introspection-0.6.14)
        + sysutils/polkit (polkit-0.96_2)
        + sysutils/consolekit (consolekit-0.4.1_3)
        + sysutils/hal (hal-0.5.14_8)
--->  Packages processed: 25 done, 0 ignored, 0 skipped and 0 failed
--->  Session ended at: Sun, 12 Dec 2010 05:40:59 +0000 (consumed 00:00:11)
```


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 12, 2010)

Haven't used portupgrade in quite a while, but I remember that I had to delete the pkgdb.db file and manually recreate it to get correct version information in the ports database by forcing it to re-read /var/db/pkg/. I think I used [cmd=]portsdb -Uu[/cmd] or something similar to create a whole new pkgdb.db file.


----------



## wblock@ (Dec 12, 2010)

That portupgrade -na output looks fine, and agrees with the portversion output.


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 12, 2010)

Well, in that case one or more of your binary packages pulled in older dependencies compared to the ones in the current ports tree, so ... upgrade (keep an eye on /usr/ports/UPDATING of course).


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 12, 2010)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> Well, in that case one or more of your binary packages pulled in older dependencies compared to the ones in the current ports tree, so ... upgrade (keep an eye on /usr/ports/UPDATING of course).



At this point I've only installed one package (xorg), and no ports. As seen, I can't upgrade xorg by uninstalling/reinstalling the port. I also can't delete the package. So, should I upgrade all the individual ports listed in message #7 by going:

`#  portupgrade -r bison dbus etc.`

I would first do

`# portupgrade -na`

 to get the order, of course.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 12, 2010)

So. I took the list of programs from the output of:

`# portversion -vl'<'`

and used it for:

`# portupgrade -r`

Only one error kept coming up:

```
! graphics/cairo (cairo-1.8.10_1,1)     (configure error)
```

However it looks like the process was a success otherwise because there was no output from the above *portversion* command. I don't have enough experience to know if is is very important, but I'm going to try to keep the versions consistent by only using ports.


----------



## wblock@ (Dec 12, 2010)

cairo shouldn't be giving an error.  You can always rebuild it manually to see the error, using script(1) if needed to capture the output:
`# cd /usr/ports/graphics/cairo; make clean; make`

No output from portversion is just how it should look when there's nothing to upgrade.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 12, 2010)

I had continued and was installing the *kdebase-3* port which took all night and part of today to get done. After that I checked with *portversion* again and no output. Good! I just did your suggestion for *cairo* and that went without error. Still *portversion*  has no output. It looks like I'm on track now. Thanks!


----------

