Hi Austin,
I wanted to see if I could simulate your situation. Since I had a 6.6
-stable desktop, I did a syspatch, upgraded that to 6.7, and then
encountered something very much like what you described when I did a
pkg_add -uUvVm.
Not completely sure why but I felt that spidermonkey update failure was
to blame for the firefox update failure so anyways I did a pkd_add -uU
spidermonkey. This showed me that gnome-code-assistance-3.16.1p9 could
not be upgraded. So I just did a pkg_delete gnome-code-assistance, along
with mousetweaks-3.12.0p3, goffice08-0.8.17p7, and ruby25-dbus-0.11.1
since they all had come up as not required for 6.7. After that pkg_add
-uUvVm upgraded ALL the packages. Also noticed that atk-2.30 on 6.6 to
was upgraded to atk-2.34.1p1 on 6.7.
Hope this is useful info. If there is any benefit in sending my
/var/log/messages that show all the package additions and deletions,
please let me know as well. Have a nice day,
Vijay
On 2020-07-30 13:13, Austin Hook wrote:
> Yes, I do believe the pkg_add -u is failing.
>
> For starters here is my current package source info.
>
> =============================================
> farm# echo $PKG_PATH
>
> farm# cat /etc/installurl
> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.openbsd.org%2Fpub%2FOpenBSD&data=02%7C01%7C%7C91f1b235ffd046b4552808d834b46c28%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637317296792770540&sdata=UoLJoGl8t%2BlhsDh1XZXw9mOlbUrTonvE6dXZmqVIZUM%3D&reserved=0
> farm#
> =============================================
>
> However, at some point earlier I had used
> #export PKG_PATH=https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fftp.vim.org%2FOpenBSD%2F6.6%2Fpackages%2Famd64%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C91f1b235ffd046b4552808d834b46c28%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637317296792770540&sdata=jLStPMDbuf8k8lURsnbRttz9rgyarfcbnz0Cd78tEsk%3D&reserved=0
> [Now commented out in the .profile]
>
> I had gotten behind in making updates, and so started using packages from
> there.
>
> My fault certainly. But hoping I could recover, and in the process
> learning a bit more about how the structure can get damaged, and hence
> understand better how it all works.
>
> Will have to run the full pkg_add -u, under current conditions, later
> today, as I have to run across the border shortly.
>
> If it becomes probable that I am wasting you folks time with too unique a
> circumstance feel free to say so.
>
> Meanwhile, I really appreciate such shared insights as helps my general
> orientation.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, Solene Rapenne wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:32:53 -0600 (MDT)
>> Austin Hook <austin@computershop.ca>:
>>
>>> Here's the output of pkg_check
>>>
>>> farm# pkg_check
>>> Packing-list sanity: ok
>>> Direct dependencies: ok
>>> --- gcj-4.9.4p12 -------------------
>>> dependency lang/gcc/4.9,-main:gcc->=4.9,<4.10:gcc-4.9.4p12 does not match
>>> any installed package
>>> Reverse dependencies: ok
>>> Files from packages: ok
>> gcj is non existent in 6.6, it was removed. The removal reason
>> should be displayed as the last line of pkg_add -u output IIRC.
>>
>> Are you sure you did run pkg_add -u and it worked correctly?
>>
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2020, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
>> On 2020/07/29 09:36, Austin Hook wrote:
>>> Probably got my packages messed up at some point, and should just stop
>>> doing endless "upgrades", and start clean with 6.7, but for learning
>>> purposes and perspective, would appreciate tips on why doing a pkg_add of
>>> firefox under 6.6 would fail, while looking for a version of atk that that
>>> is not in the packages for 6.6?
>>>
>>>
>>> farm# pkg_add firefox
>>> quirks-3.187 signed on 2020-05-19T14:41:48Z
>>> Can't install firefox-72.0.2 because of libraries
>>> |library atk-1.0.21809.3 not found
>>> ...
>>>
>>> But looking at:
>>>
>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fftp.openbsd.org%2Fpub%2FOpenBSD%2F6.6%2Fpackages%2Famd64%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C91f1b235ffd046b4552808d834b46c28%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637317296792770540&sdata=E%2F4Ryl17kjd%2FF%2BQoCD7pKZm%2BMVmNUIzb1YizcLLgvm4%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>> I only see: atk-2.... and no atk-1....
>> atk-1.0.21809.3 reported by pkg_add in the "library not found" line refers
>> to the library version (file /usr/local/lib/libatk-1.0.so.21809.3) not the
>> package version (this library is contained in the atk-2.32.0 package).
>>> -------------------------- <clip> ----------------------
>>> at-spi2-core-2.32.1.tgz 12-Oct-2019 06:06 258681
>>> atari800-4.1.0.tgz 12-Oct-2019 06:06 408617
>>> atf-0.18p3.tgz 12-Oct-2019 06:06 1129085
>>> atk-2.32.0.tgz 12-Oct-2019 06:06 461597
>>> atk2mm-2.28.0.tgz 12-Oct-2019 06:06 1238387
>>> atlas-0.4.3.1p10.tgz 12-Oct-2019 06:06 2360270
>>> atomicparsley-0.9.6p3.tgz 12-Oct-2019 06:06 138835
>>> --------------------------- </clip> -----------------------
>>>
>>> I realize that there are dependencies of dependencies going on here. but
>>> for perspective, why wouldn't atk-1... exist in the same package
>>> repository as the 6.6 version of firefox does, if that version (or
>>> probably it's other dependencies) requires it. Wouldn't package testing
>>> have failed for firefox when it was tested for 6.6? And if not, why not?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance, for any comment.
>>>
>>> Austin Hook
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Could you show the full output from these please?
>>
>> echo $PKG_PATH
>> cat /etc/installurl
>> pkg_add -u
>> pkg_info
>>
No comments:
Post a Comment