Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:30:09 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> To: RW <list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Upgrading Ports on 5.3 Message-ID: <449136B1.1050105@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <200606142241.43893.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> References: <448C5861.5010901@rzweb.com> <20060613215032.P12687@tripel.monochrome.org> <448FE12A.2010605@dial.pipex.com> <200606142241.43893.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
RW wrote:
>On Wednesday 14 June 2006 11:12, Alex Zbyslaw wrote:
>
>
>
>>[portversion -L =] would be quicker. Any > needs upgrading. Any < would mean you somehow
>>had an installed version newer that the port version!
>>
>>
>
>Presumably that could happen if the port were reverted.
>
For completeness, looks like I got it backwards:
< The installed version of the package is older than the current
version.
> The installed version of the package is newer than the current
version. This situation can arise with using an out-of-date
INDEX file, or when testing new ports.
And yes, a reverted port would do it too, I expect.
And my system shows tons of > (which is what confused me) whereas
pkg_version shows lots of =. Looks like you have to be religious about
keeping INDEX up to date.
pkg_version -L =
is functionally equivalent, slower, but doesn't require up-to-date INDEX
(which just takes too long to build and I usually forget or can't be
bothered).
portversion -> tidy completists
pkg_version -> lazy sods like me
--Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?449136B1.1050105>