From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Mar 31 09:12:03 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C7437B401
	for <stable@freebsd.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:12:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from testmail.wolves.k12.mo.us (testmail.wolves.k12.mo.us
	[207.160.214.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D143943FA3
	for <stable@freebsd.org>; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 09:12:02 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us)
Received: by testmail.wolves.k12.mo.us (Postfix, from userid 1001)
	id C4309CD61; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:12:01 -0600 (CST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by testmail.wolves.k12.mo.us (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BD1A9CD19; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:12:01 -0600 (CST)
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 11:12:01 -0600 (CST)
From: Chris Dillon <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us>
To: Buki <dev@null.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20030331163232.GA6705@dak2060.sh.cvut.cz>
Message-ID: <20030331110745.E5028@duey.wolves.k12.mo.us>
References: <20030331163232.GA6705@dak2060.sh.cvut.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: portupgrade weirdness
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code
	<freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 17:12:05 -0000

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Buki wrote:

> I am begining to think there is something wrong with portutils
> (notice the difference between pkg_version and portversion):
>
> buki@dak2060:/usr/ports#portversion -v | grep -v =
> XFree86-libraries-4.3.0     <  needs updating (port has 4.3.0_1)
> cvsup-without-gui-16.1f     <  needs updating (port has 16.1g)
> ghostscript-gnu-7.05_3      <  needs updating (port has 7.05_4)
> portupgrade-20030308_2      >  succeeds port (port has 20030228)
>
> buki@dak2060:/usr/ports#pkg_version -v | grep -v =
> XFree86-libraries-4.3.0             <   needs updating (port has 4.3.0_1)
> cvsup-without-gui-16.1f             <   needs updating (port has 16.1g)
> fontconfig-2.1_6                    <   needs updating (port has 2.1_7)
> ghostscript-gnu-7.05_3              <   needs updating (port has 7.05_5)
> lftp-2.6.4                          <   needs updating (port has 2.6.5)
> mutt-devel-1.5.3                    <   needs updating (port has 1.5.4)
> net-snmp-5.0.6                      <   needs updating (port has 5.0.8)
> w3m-0.4                             <   needs updating (port has 0.4.1)

The difference is that portversion uses ports/INDEX to find "current"
information about the ports to be compared to the installed packages,
but pkg_version instead looks directly at the ports in question,
bypassing INDEX.  pkg_version is slower, but always correct.  Do a
'make index' in /usr/ports to make an up-to-date INDEX and then
compare them again.

-- 
 Chris Dillon - cdillon(at)wolves.k12.mo.us
 FreeBSD: The fastest and most stable server OS on the planet
 - Available for IA32 (Intel x86) and Alpha architectures
 - IA64, PowerPC, UltraSPARC, ARM, and S/390 under development
 - http://www.freebsd.org

No trees were harmed in the composition of this message, although some
electrons were mildly inconvenienced.