This has been fixed in the ports tree. Please wait a short while and try building again. On 13 Aug 2007, at 19:23, susanmackay@optusnet.com.au wrote:

I'm trying to install gnome-doc-utils and I get the following (just the last output lines - all lines above appeared to be 'normal' operation):

/usr/bin/install -c -m 644 gnome-doc-xslt-C.omf /opt/local/var/ macports/build/_opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macports .org_release_ports_gnome_gnome-doc-utils/work/destroot/opt/local/ share/omf/g nome-doc-xslt/gnome-doc-xslt-C.omf make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'. make[3]: Nothing to be done for `install-data-am'. make[2]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'. test -z "/opt/local/share/gnome-doc-utils" || /bin/sh ./ mkinstalldirs "/opt/local/var/macports/build/ _opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macport s.org_release_ports_gnome_gnome-doc-utils/work/destroot/opt/local/ share/gnom e-doc-utils" /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 'template.omf.in' '/opt/local/var/macports/build/ _opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macport s.org_release_ports_gnome_gnome-doc-utils/work/destroot/opt/local/ share/gnom e-doc-utils/template.omf.in' /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 'template.make' '/opt/local/var/macports/build/ _opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macport s.org_release_ports_gnome_gnome-doc-utils/work/destroot/opt/local/ share/gnom e-doc-utils/template.make' /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 'template-document.xml' '/opt/local/var/macports/build/ _opt_local_var_macports_sources_rsync.macport s.org_release_ports_gnome_gnome-doc-utils/work/destroot/opt/local/ share/gnom e-doc-utils/template-document.xml' DEBUG: Executing destroot_finish DEBUG: checking for mtree violations Error: violation by /opt/local/man Error: Target org.macports.destroot returned: mtree violation! Warning: the following items did not execute (for gnome-doc-utils): org.macports.activate org.macports.destroot org.macports.install Error: Status 1 encountered during processing. Titania:~ susan$ sudo port -dv install gnome-doc-utils

(The last line is there to show the command I used).

I had recently ( as in about 1200UTC 13/8/2007) done a selfupdate and a sync which included several new versions of some packages. These were 'upgraded' beforehand.

Is there something I have to do to get this to work?

Thanks

Susan _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users

Randall Wood rhwood@mac.com http://shyramblings.blogspot.com "The rules are simple: The ball is round. The game lasts 90 minutes. All the rest is just philosophy."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Susan Mackay wrote:

Thanks for the information. However, one answer leads to two questions:

1) what sort of time frame is "a short while" (days, weeks,....)

Half an hour normally. Then use `sudo port sync` to update your ports tree and to get the newest updates. Then run the command.

2) is there somewhere I can look to se if things like this have already been reported to same the 'noise' in the list? (I couldn't find anything in this list when I looked - perhaps it was under another title)

You can search Trac [1] to see if this bug was already reported. You can also search the mailinglist archive [2].

Thanks

Susan

Hope this helps, Simon [1]: http://trac.macports.org/projects/macports/search [2]: http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/ - -- + privacy is necessary + using http://gnupg.org + public key id: 0x6115F804EFB33229 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFGwaoBYRX4BO+zMikRCk0rAKCjfX1Z2BZJjMHsElv/V1WOqK/TNwCeIgTf Dp9kpxT6NUgteeFk+SvyHgI= =tzzK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 markd@macports.org wrote:

...

Half an hour normally. Then use `sudo port sync` to update your ports tree and to get the newest updates. Then run the command.

Are there good reasons not to do a selfupdate? I haven't even documented 'port sync' in the new guide because I'm still waiting for an argument for its utility. Can someone tell me why we tell people to do a 'port sync'? I don't understood that.

Mark

Hi Mark, I think for "normal" users there is no difference and you are right, it would be better to use selfupdate. I should have used that in the mail, thanks for the hint; will do next time. Personally I use sync because it's faster and I can be sure my port command is not updated (which would cause some problems in my setup). But for casual users selfupdate is indeed better. I think both should be documented (because undocumented features are not so good) but the selfupdate should be marked clearly as the better thing to do. Simon - -- + privacy is necessary + using http://gnupg.org + public key id: 0x6115F804EFB33229 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFGwcu/YRX4BO+zMikRCh3xAJ4opr/cY+vYPb3u43PQ8PJRbwCdXgCg3K2l AyEH/zv/eofSypLUXvvVkfM= =4pLU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 markd@macports.org wrote:

Simon Ruderich <simon@ruderich.com> writes:

...

I think for "normal" users there is no difference and you are right, it would be better to use selfupdate. I should have used that in the mail, thanks for the hint; will do next time.

Oh I wasn't meaning to say you shouldn't tell people to use 'port sync', it was just my way of finding out why it is used.

No apologies necessary. You are right, "port selfupdate" is much better for normals users and I just wanted to say you convinced me and I will use selfupdate in new mails when describing this ;-)

...

Personally I use sync because it's faster and I can be sure my port command is not updated (which would cause some problems in my setup). But for casual users selfupdate is indeed better.

I see. Yeah that makes sense.

...

I think both should be documented (because undocumented features are not so good) but the selfupdate should be marked clearly as the better thing to do.

Yes I agree. I'll put it in as the lesser used option for those that want it the next chance I get. Thanks.

Thats good. Thanks too.

Mark

Thanks for your work with the documentation, Simon - -- + privacy is necessary + using http://gnupg.org + public key id: 0x6115F804EFB33229 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin) iD8DBQFGwdCTYRX4BO+zMikRCtU8AJ9A7g7/dmS2JsuzYU0TqExtt/8uwwCeLZ1A 16W4gSkJNWrp3yplOu2xNQQ= =O/Ot -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Keith J. Schultz wrote:

sync brings the local ports list uptodate so that port can do its thing with the newest ports! Normally, a sync is all the users needs. Unless their is a new port version out. Whether it is better to sync or selfupdate depends on what has changed in the way port works. Sometimes port will work with an older version and syncing, yet if their are major changes a user will need to selfupdate.

"selfupdate" is broken on some platforms, and sometimes a newer MacPorts release is broken itself, so user might prefer to just update the ports tree - without having to update base itself... It's possible to update base later, without using "selfupdate".

If the user waits to long to selfupdate that can cause havoc with the ports system!

Actually one *can* use older versions of base, as long as one also uses older versions of the ports (e.g. the ones in the "archive") Sometimes this is useful, like for older now unsupported platforms.

The question should be do we really need sync or would selfupdate do. That is a design feature.

I think we need both. Or with the svn update, make that "all three". --anders