pkg doesn't respect DEFAULT_VERSIONS

Y

YuryG

I have DEFAULT_VERSIONS+= ruby=2.3 in make.conf
but since last upgrade (a couple of days ago) pkg version -v says I should upgrade to 2.4 version also making some dependant ports look "orphaned" (ruby23-bdb-0.6.6_5, ruby23-gems-2.6.14, ruby23-gems-2.6.14) in that output.
Also, there's no mentioning of bumping default version of ruby to 2.4 in UPDATING.
Or I'm wrong?
 
I can't reproduce any issues with this. Just curious: do you happen to have VERSION_SOURCE set in pkg.conf and if so: what is it set to?
 
ShelLuser said:
VERSION_SOURCE set in pkg.conf
Click to expand...
No.
I use portupgrade to install and upgrade ports. pkg, as I can see it, is a system of managing dependencies (among of other things it can do). So, after portsnap fetch update I check /usr/ports/UPDATING if anything to take in account manually and do pkg version -v to check what specifically should be upgraded. Usually, pkg respects DEFAULT_VERSIONS that are set in make.conf. But not in this case.
 
of course pkg doesn't respect DEFAULT_VERSIONS. That only applies to building from source.
Whatever the repository that is being fetch has, that's what is "respected".

Expecting pkg to react to the contents of make.conf reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how binary packages and ports relate to each other.
 
marino said:
of course pkg doesn't respect DEFAULT_VERSIONS. That only applies to building from source.
Whatever the repository that is being fetch has, that's what is "respected".

Expecting pkg to react to the contents of make.conf reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how binary packages and ports relate to each other.
Click to expand...
O.K. And what pkg info -r or pkg version concerning built from source ports? And should somehow it show me "needs upgrade" (or "orphaned") with other ports used in different versions than current in binary repo?
 
I don't understand your question.
Let me answer like this:
*IF* you want defaults to be set differently than what the official FreeBSD packages have, then you *must* build at least some packages yourself. Ideally you build all your packages locally and point your pkg(8) program to the local repository. Then pkg(8) will show correctly what is available to upgrade (assuming you already built the new packages locally).

synth will allow mixing of official freebsd packages and adding them to a local repository. Some people like this feature although I would still recommend building everything yourself if you have the server power to do so.
 
Well. I use ports for everything. (So, I do NOT use pkg install) When upgrading ports' tree with portsnap fetch update how should I know what to upgrade next? I used to use pkg version, also I had no troubles with pkg info to know dependencies etc. when using ports (and respecting OPTIONS for each port, yes?).
Also, as I can see, my behaviour complies with Handbook 4.5.3.
Not sure I am understanding your idea.
 
well, make sure your pkg version uses the ports tree index for comparison and not the official remote repository. The ports and packages are almost never in sync on FreeBSD.

You say you don't understand my idea.
Well, I don't understand what you're not understanding.
 
Set in the DEFAULT_VERSIONSrelated ports Makefile (like lang/php, lang/ruby , databases/bdb, etc) something like an update flag or a function in the related bsd.XXX.mk. (or in bsd.default-versions).
Something like (pseudo-code):
Code: 
.if (${NEW_VERSION} != ${VERSION_WHICH_IS_SET_NOW})
${ECHO} "your version is set to ${VERSION_WHICH_IS_SET_NOW} (or not set)"
${ECHO} "warn DEFAULT_VERSION has bumped to ${NEW_VERSION}"

#maybe, here a description what to do
.endif
(maybe an DEFAULT_VERSION_CHANGE flag yes/no -- only in use if no DEFAULT_VERSION is set - which can be enabled/disabled in make.conf and exits the update if it is changed).

It is an ugly warning but no maintainer could forget to make an entry in /usr/ports/UPDATING.
 
My question is: why pkg version -v says me that my ruby “needs updating” if it proposes me the other major version (2.3 and 2.4)? Also, I suppose that pkg's “orphaned” messages are related to that my installed ports — ruby23-bdb-0.6.6_5, ruby23-gems-2.6.14, ruby23-gems-2.6.14 — “belong” only to 2.3 ruby, not 2.4 (and there are corresponding directories in /usr/ports despite the messages). So, how to correctly know what really need updating in my case?

How should I be sure that “ pkg version uses the ports tree index for comparison and not the official remote repository” if I am following all the recommendations in Handbook 4.5? So, I do not understand why do you suggest me to use synth “to build packages locally” if I use ports and portupgrade and no packages?
 
YuryG By default pkg operates with the official remote FreeBSD repository. You say you build all your packages locally using the ports tree. So when you use pkg version you are comparing different things. Personally I use this command if I need to check the ports vs my installed packages:

Code: 
# portmaster -L | grep -B 1 "New version"
===>>> faad2-2.8.6,1
   ===>>> New version available: faad2-2.8.8,1
--
===>>> jpeg-turbo-1.5.2
   ===>>> New version available: jpeg-turbo-1.5.3
--
===>>> libdrm-2.4.88,1
   ===>>> New version available: libdrm-2.4.89,1
--
===>>> mesa-dri-17.3.0
   ===>>> New version available: mesa-dri-17.3.1
===>>> mesa-libs-17.3.0
   ===>>> New version available: mesa-libs-17.3.1
--
===>>> openjdk8-8.152.16_1
   ===>>> New version available: openjdk8-8.152.16_2
--
===>>> samba46-4.6.11
   ===>>> New version available: samba46-4.6.12
--
===>>> firefox-57.0.2,1
   ===>>> New version available: firefox-57.0.2_1,1
--
===>>> vim-8.0.1397
   ===>>> New version available: vim-8.0.1424
 
YuryG said:
My question is: why pkg version -v says me that my ruby “needs updating” if it proposes me the other major version (2.3 and 2.4)?
Click to expand...
Because some local settings no doubt. This is what I meant when I mentioned that I can't reproduce any issues.

Example: Apache's default version is 2.4 according to /usr/ports/Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk. My installed version however is 2.2 and I've set DEFAULT_VERSIONS accordingly.

Code: 
$ pkg version -vx apache
apache22-2.2.34_1                  =   up-to-date with index
And this also applies to other software as well.

YuryG said:
How should I be sure that “ pkg version uses the ports tree index for comparison and not the official remote repository” if I am following all the recommendations in Handbook 4.5?
Click to expand...
Check pkg-version(8). It does so by default unless you specify another command line parameter or have overridden this setting in pkg.conf.

(edit): There's a bit more to this, but the manpage will explain. When the INDEX doesn't exist it'll fall back to the ports collection and when that doesn't exist it'll fall back to an online repository.

So if you wish to enforce this then you could use pkg version -Ix ruby optionally followed by an index file. To be sure that you're using the correct index file check /etc/portsnap.conf to see which index file(s) are build and/or maintained. Optionally you could specify one of those.

In my environment it lists INDEX-9 and INDEX-10 so to enforce a proper lookup I'd use:

Code: 
$ pkg version -Ivx apache /usr/ports/INDEX-10
apache22-2.2.34_1                  =   up-to-date with index

Hope this can help.
 
O.K. I haven't modified pkg.conf nor portsnap.conf. So, it uses /usr/ports/INDEX-10.
Also, I have DEFAULT_VERSIONS+= ruby=2.3 in make.conf. But
Code: 
$ pkg version -Iv /usr/ports/INDEX-10 | grep "<"
faad2-2.8.6,1                      <   needs updating (index has 2.8.8,1)
ruby-2.3.6,1                       <   needs updating (index has 2.4.3,1)
$
$ pkg version -Ix ruby /usr/ports/INDEX-10
ruby-2.3.6,1                       <
ruby23-bdb-0.6.6_5                 ?
ruby23-gdbm-2.3.6_3,1              ?
ruby23-gems-2.6.14                 ?
rubygem-hpricot-0.8.6              =
rubygem-mustache-1.0.5             =
rubygem-rake-12.3.0                =
rubygem-rdiscount-2.2.0.1          =
rubygem-ronn-0.7.3                 =
I have other non-standard versions set in make.conf and have no trouble with them. Say, I have python3=3.5 and default now is 3.6, but I do not see any < signs in pkg version -Ix python output.
Only with ruby I have the problem. So, my topic exists. Where to check more?
 
I never used ports-mgmt/portupgrade but did use ports-mgmt/portmaster in the past. With portmaster you can issue the command portmaster -L and it will tell you if port upgrades are available.

In portupgrade(1) I see these notes:
+o To check for available upgrades, give portversion(1) a try instead of
pkg_version(1). It has comparable usage with pkg_version(1) but runs
much faster. Also the output script of ``portversion -c'' utilizes
portupgrade(1) for upgrading.
 
If your INDEX-10 already believes that the "default" version of ruby has been bumped to 2.4 then wouldn't what you seen happening be expected?

Try this:
Code: 
grep '^ruby\-' /usr/ports/INDEX-10 | cut -d '|' -f1
 
PacketMan said:
…To check for available upgrades, give portversion(1) a try instead of pkg_version(1).
Click to expand...
Thanks!
Code: 
$ portversion -v | grep ruby
ruby-2.3.6,1                =  up-to-date with port
...
P.S.
But!
Code: 
py27-gdbm-2.7.14_4          <  needs updating (port has 3.6.4_4)
py27-sqlite3-2.7.14_7       <  needs updating (port has 3.6.4_7)
py27-tkinter-2.7.14_6       <  needs updating (port has 3.6.4_6)
ruby23-gdbm-2.3.6_3,1       <  needs updating (port has 2.4.3_3,1)
 
ljboiler said:
If your INDEX-10 already believes that the "default" version of ruby has been bumped to 2.4 then wouldn't what you seen happening be expected?

Try this:
Code: 
grep '^ruby\-' /usr/ports/INDEX-10 | cut -d '|' -f1
Click to expand...
Indeed. This command gives:
Code: 
ruby-build-20171215
ruby-subversion-1.9.7
ruby-2.4.3,1
ruby-rd-mode.el-0.6.38
I feel confused. How's that?
 
If you want the INDEX to accurately reflect your own customized /etc/make.conf you'll have to generate it yourself (i.e. make -C /usr/ports index) and not just fetch it from the FreeBSD cluster (which uses ports tree defaults to generate it and the package names and versions in it reflect this).
 
If you use portsnap(8) there's no need to generate an INDEX file. You would only need to do this if you update your ports tree with SVN or Git.

Also note that you don't need to add the INDEX file to the pkg-version(8) command. The -I option already takes care of this.

pkg version -vI # Gets the versions and compares them against the local INDEX.
pkg version -vR # Gets the versions and compares them against the remote repository
 
SirDice@, I don't think you are following the topic correctly.
He *does* need to generate an INDEX file if he's using pkg(8) to scan the index file to determine if the install packages are out of date. That's the point of the topic. If he changes pkg(8) to scan the ports directly, then he wouldn't need it.
Neither of your suggested commands work. The first is what's he's already doing and the second doesn't work because he's changed the defaults from the official FreeBSD settings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top