From owner-freebsd-questions Wed May 15 15:28: 1 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from shockwave.systems.pipex.net (shockwave.systems.pipex.net [62.190.223.9]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C690937B4BE for ; Wed, 15 May 2002 15:27:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ThisAddressDoesNotExist (userhh092.dsl.pipex.com [62.190.215.92]) by shockwave.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 291F7160000DA; Wed, 15 May 2002 23:27:40 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: pkg_version -v returns: succeeds port for pdksh-5.2.14 From: "S. Roberts" Reply-To: sroberts@dsl.pipex.com To: Erik Trulsson Cc: FreeBSD-Questions In-Reply-To: <20020515222341.GA23483@student.uu.se> References: <1021497989.41001.27.camel@Demon.Strobe.org> <20020515222341.GA23483@student.uu.se> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-hH3DaGKIF0VqJOmrPodD" X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.5 Date: 15 May 2002 23:23:36 +0100 Message-Id: <1021501417.41001.38.camel@Demon.Strobe.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG --=-hH3DaGKIF0VqJOmrPodD Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey Erik, Thanks for the quick feedback. I was beginning to worry about having to re-run something or the other. So following on from "not worrying about this", does this anomaly get sorted out by itself at some point? Meaning.., should I be thinking of contacting the port maintainer so as to alert them to this ocurence? Just meaning to help 'em out in any way I can for now. Stacey On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 23:23, Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 10:26:29PM +0100, S. Roberts wrote: > > Hi There, > > Strange one here for me. > >=20 > > I've just cvsup'd my ports tree and then ran pkg_version -v and got thi= s > > for one of my installed ports: > >=20 > > pdksh-5.2.14 > succeeds port (port has 5.2.14.p2= ) > >=20 > > Never seen that before! Could someone who know more about this give an > > explanation, please? Man pkg_version says this about that string result= : > >=20 > > > The installed version of the package is newer than the current > > version.This situation can arise with an out-of-date index file, o= r > > when testing new ports. > >=20 > > Taking both explanations for this case: > > 1] I always run portsdb -Uu after cvsup'ing the ports tree, I wouldn't > > have thought that my Index file was out-of-date. > > 2] Not sure about the "testing nrew ports" either, I'm not (oknowingly) > > actively testing new ports. > >=20 > > Suggestions? >=20 > Nothing to worry about. >=20 > The problem is simply that the version number for the newest version of > the pdksh port (5.2.14.p2) is counted as "older" than the old version > number (5.2.14) by pkg_version. >=20 > So the bug is in the version number given to the latest update of the > pdksh port and not in anything you did. >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > > Erik Trulsson > ertr1013@student.uu.se --=20 Stacey Roberts B.Sc. (HONS) Computer Science Network Systems Engineer --=-hH3DaGKIF0VqJOmrPodD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey Erik, Thanks for the quick feedback. I was beginning to worry about having to re-run something or the other. So following on from "not worrying about this", does this anomaly get sorted out by itself at some point? Meaning.., should I be thinking of contacting the port maintainer so as to alert them to this ocurence? Just meaning to help 'em out in any way I can for now. Stacey On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 23:23, Erik Trulsson wrote: > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 10:26:29PM +0100, S. Roberts wrote: > > Hi There, > > Strange one here for me. > >=20 > > I've just cvsup'd my ports tree and then ran pkg_version -v and got thi= s > > for one of my installed ports: > >=20 > > pdksh-5.2.14 > succeeds port (port has 5.2.14.p2= ) > >=20 > > Never seen that before! Could someone who know more about this give an > > explanation, please? Man pkg_version says this about that string result= : > >=20 > > > The installed version of the package is newer than the current > > version.This situation can arise with an out-of-date index file, o= r > > when testing new ports. > >=20 > > Taking both explanations for this case: > > 1] I always run portsdb -Uu after cvsup'ing the ports tree, I wouldn't > > have thought that my Index file was out-of-date. > > 2] Not sure about the "testing nrew ports" either, I'm not (oknowingly) > > actively testing new ports. > >=20 > > Suggestions? >=20 > Nothing to worry about. >=20 > The problem is simply that the version number for the newest version of > the pdksh port (5.2.14.p2) is counted as "older" than the old version > number (5.2.14) by pkg_version. >=20 > So the bug is in the version number given to the latest update of the > pdksh port and not in anything you did. >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 > > Erik Trulsson > ertr1013@student.uu.se - --=20 Stacey Roberts B.Sc. (HONS) Computer Science Network Systems Engineer -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.5.8 iQA/AwUBPOLf5vdn4A8qiCO5EQJEOwCg37WWsDCMyc3Hseawd0OVk2MP7PAAnRZY FY4zXiZDxa/+umuZWq7jToNK =2+EA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-hH3DaGKIF0VqJOmrPodD-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message