From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 15 10:30:21 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5E3D16A47B for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:30:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from smtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk (smtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk [195.188.213.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B0ED43D4C for ; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:30:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from xfb52@dial.pipex.com) Received: from [172.23.170.142] (helo=anti-virus02-09) by smtp-out5.blueyonder.co.uk with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Fqp74-0003Dt-Nk; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:30:10 +0100 Received: from [82.41.32.90] (helo=[192.168.0.2]) by asmtp-out3.blueyonder.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Fqp74-00073U-1R; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:30:10 +0100 Message-ID: <449136B1.1050105@dial.pipex.com> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 11:30:09 +0100 From: Alex Zbyslaw User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-GB; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060515 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: RW References: <448C5861.5010901@rzweb.com> <20060613215032.P12687@tripel.monochrome.org> <448FE12A.2010605@dial.pipex.com> <200606142241.43893.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> In-Reply-To: <200606142241.43893.list-freebsd-2004@morbius.sent.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Upgrading Ports on 5.3 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:30:21 -0000 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 This situation can arise with using an out-of-date INDEX file, or when testing new ports.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