Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:48:53 +0200 From: Thomas Backman <serenity@exscape.org> To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portversion and pkg_version have different opinions on current versions Message-ID: <6B5B7698-CCD8-48FF-A5FB-0349D4CC1143@exscape.org> In-Reply-To: <4A86FF1E.1030705@quip.cz> References: <B787D58E-9157-48E7-ADF3-E8D54F8AF22F@exscape.org> <4A86FF1E.1030705@quip.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 15, 2009, at 20:31, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > Thomas Backman wrote: > [...] >> [root@chaos ~]# pkgdb -aF >> ---> Checking the package registry database >> [root@chaos ~]# portversion -l '<' >> dnsmasq < >> ezm3 < >> libtool < >> python26 < >> [root@chaos ~]# pkg_version | awk '$2 !~ /=/' >> [root@chaos ~]# portupgrade -a >> [root@chaos ~]# > [...] > > As was mentioned, you can use pkg_version -L =, or you can compare > it with INDEX.db instead of ports tree: pkg_version -IL =. This is > significantly faster. > > pkg_version -L = > Usr: 7.286s Krnl: 3.984s Totl: 0:31.77s > > pkg_version -IL = > Usr: 0.195s Krnl: 0.015s Totl: 0:00.21s > > And if you want to know the version of newer (available) port, you > can use pkg_version -vIL = > It gives you something like this: > > png-1.2.35 < needs updating (index has 1.2.38) > postfix-2.5.6,1 < needs updating (index has 2.6.3,1) > vim-lite-7.2.209 < needs updating (index has 7.2.239) > > Miroslav Lachman Thanks, guys! However, a new issue appeared... Kind of. I know I read something about portsnap and INDEX on the -current list recently, so I'm guessing this is related? Maybe not, though (see later in the mail). [root@chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# portsnap -I fetch update >/dev/null [root@chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# pkg_version -vL= [root@chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# pkg_version -vIL= curl-7.19.5_1 < needs updating (index has 7.19.6) dnsmasq-2.49_1 < needs updating (index has 2.49_2) ezm3-1.1_2 < needs updating (index has 1.2_1) libtool-1.5.26 ! Comparison failed postfix-2.6.2_1,1 < needs updating (index has 2.6.3,1) python26-2.6.2_1 < needs updating (index has 2.6.2_2) vnstat-1.7_2 < needs updating (index has 1.8) vsftpd-ssl-2.1.2 < needs updating (index has 2.2.0) [root@chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# portupgrade -a [root@chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# ls -l /usr/ports/INDEX-* -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 17370624 Jul 31 19:45 /usr/ports/INDEX-5 -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 19813792 Aug 15 20:42 /usr/ports/INDEX-6 -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 19808537 Aug 15 20:42 /usr/ports/INDEX-7 -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 34316288 May 8 10:35 /usr/ports/INDEX-7.db -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 19816190 Aug 15 20:42 /usr/ports/INDEX-8 -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 1291821 May 30 12:06 /usr/ports/INDEX-8.bz2 -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 34869248 Aug 14 19:30 /usr/ports/INDEX-8.db [root@chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# date Sat Aug 15 20:43:07 CEST 2009 [root@chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# So... Using the index causes problems (or the opposite!). Could I be using an index for something like HEAD despite not using that ports tree? (Again, pretty new to this!) I don't know how the INDEX files work, but I do know (thank you DTrace) that INDEX-8 was the only one read during "pkg_version -vIL=". Oh, and my understanding is that the INDEX-8 is fetched via portsnap? Running the "fetch update" took less than 20 seconds (the cron job ran about 2 hours ago, though), so I guess it cannot have been built (that does take a lot of time, yes?)? Regards, Thomas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6B5B7698-CCD8-48FF-A5FB-0349D4CC1143>