Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2024 13:36:07 -0500 From: Juan Manuel Palacios <jmpalacios@gmail.com> To: Andrea Venturoli <ml@netfence.it> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: postgresql 16 Message-ID: <3614A2E8-4BE5-4285-B9B3-6349235D41C2@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3bc92b40-205f-4da1-ab9c-d3ae5bb5ab1a@netfence.it> References: <6cKxpppDaTNpexhV@aceecat.org> <abc9e458-9305-40b0-bc58-ec1dd3d636dc@fechner.net> <3bc92b40-205f-4da1-ab9c-d3ae5bb5ab1a@netfence.it>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Dec 3, 2024, at 2:54=E2=80=AFAM, Andrea Venturoli <ml@netfence.it> = wrote: >=20 > On 12/3/24 06:55, Matthias Fechner wrote: >=20 >> why not do a: >> pkg upgrade >=20 > Maybe the OP is using 2024Q4 port tree? > PostgreSQL updates are often not MFH (even for security fixes). >=20 > bye > av. >=20 Right, the fresh ports.org age for PostgreSQL 16 clearly shows that the = port is still at 16.4 for the quarterly branch, so that could very well = be the case. A simple =E2=80=98pkg -vv=E2=80=99 invocation would show = the active packages repository.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3614A2E8-4BE5-4285-B9B3-6349235D41C2>