Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 23:00:15 -0500 From: "sindrome" <sindrome@gmail.com> To: "'Warren Block'" <wblock@wonkity.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, 'Robert Huff' <roberthuff@rcn.com> Subject: RE: pkgng vs. portupgrade reporting ports outdated Message-ID: <001501cf5083$8dc109d0$a9431d70$@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404042016530.42337@wonkity.com> References: <533F36F0.8020803@rcn.com> <000601cf505e$d3b6bc70$7b243550$@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404042016530.42337@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
So now the way to keep ports up-to-date is to execute 'pkg update' and 'pkg upgrade'? Are you saying I shouldn't svn update the ports tree anymore? oz:132:/usr/local/etc# pkg update oz:133:/usr/local/etc# pkg upgrade -----Original Message----- From: Warren Block [mailto:wblock@wonkity.com] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 9:23 PM To: sindrome Cc: 'Robert Huff'; ports@freebsd.org Subject: RE: pkgng vs. portupgrade reporting ports outdated On Fri, 4 Apr 2014, sindrome wrote: > There is a major inconsistency with what pkg_version -v says is > outdated and what pkgng says. Of course. pkg_version looks at the text files in /var/db/pkg, while pkg looks at the database local.sqlite in that directory. The first step in using pkg is running pkg2ng, which imports the old information from the text files into the sqlite table. After that, pkg_version should not be used. It's getting information from an outdated database.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001501cf5083$8dc109d0$a9431d70$>