From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Jun  6 14:58:33 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com (bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com [171.70.84.42])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DBFB37B5F1
	for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue,  6 Jun 2000 14:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bmah@cisco.com)
Received: (from bmah@localhost)
	by bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com (8.10.1/8.10.1) id e56LwLT23308;
	Tue, 6 Jun 2000 14:58:21 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bmah)
Message-Id: <200006062158.e56LwLT23308@bmah-freebsd-0.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1+ 05/08/2000
To: Thomas Schuerger <schuerge@wjpserver.CS.Uni-SB.DE>
Cc: Will Andrews <andrews@technologist.com>,
	freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Check for ports updates 
In-reply-to: <200006062025.WAA12391@wjpserver.cs.uni-sb.de> 
References: <200006062025.WAA12391@wjpserver.cs.uni-sb.de>
Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Schuerger <schuerge@wjpserver.CS.Uni-SB.DE>
   message dated "Tue, 06 Jun 2000 22:25:02 +0200."
From: bmah@cisco.com (Bruce A. Mah)
Reply-To: bmah@cisco.com
X-Face: g~c`.{#4q0"(V*b#g[i~rXgm*w;:nMfz%_RZLma)UgGN&=j`5vXoU^@n5<Pi&akO)o^8;[r
 %l(8ZHlbF`dD>v4:OO)c["!w)nD/!!~e4Sj7LiT'6*wZ83454H""lb{CC%T37O!!'S$S&D}sem7I[A
 2V%N&+
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 14:58:21 -0700
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

If memory serves me right, Thomas Schuerger wrote:
> > > Is there already a tool that checks the installed ports for available
> > > updates in /usr/ports?
> > > 
> > > I've written such a tool, which seems to work fine already. Anyone
> > > interested?
> > 
> > pkg_version(1)
> 
> Ah, haven't seen that before. The output of pkg_version is very
> canonical, but not very readable for humans. And it's slower than my
> version... ;-)

Without having looked at ports_updates yet, let me just mention that:

1.  If you want human-readable output, try "pkg_version -v".  Maybe 
that should have been a default; certainly I always run it that way.  
But in the case that a program was going to postprocess the output, I 
didn't want it to have to wade through a bunch of pretty-printing stuff 
to get the results it needed.

2.  When I was writing pkg_version, speed wasn't exactly a big priority 
to me, since pretty much *anything* was faster than what I was doing.

Bruce.

PS.  I've been really bad about ignoring suggestions for pkg_version, 
mostly because it does everything I need/want it to do right now.





To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message