Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 03:14:02 -0400 From: Adam McLaurin <adam.mclaurin@gmx.net> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portupgrade misbehavior Message-ID: <20040520031402.53da5a56.adam.mclaurin@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <20040520030710.448ae885.adam.mclaurin@gmx.net> References: <20040520025535.41b274ac.adam.mclaurin@gmx.net> <20040520070136.GA62040@xor.obsecurity.org> <20040520030710.448ae885.adam.mclaurin@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 20 May 2004 03:07:10 -0400 Adam McLaurin <adam.mclaurin@gmx.net> wrote: > -# ls -al /usr/ports/INDEX* > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 5089899 May 1 08:57 /usr/ports/INDEX > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 4947853 Mar 15 18:20 /usr/ports/INDEX-5 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 10911744 Apr 6 01:21 /usr/ports/INDEX.db > > Looking at http://www.freshports.org/shells/zsh , the zsh port hasn't > been modified since March 23rd, so I should be OK on that front. > > > And portversion does also report that zsh is up-to-date: > > -# portversion -v |grep -i zsh > zsh-4.2.0 = up-to-date with port Hmm now I've got myself confused; is it INDEX or INDEX-5 I should be looking at here? In any case, even portversion reports zsh as up-to-date, so something does appear to be wrong. -- Adam "satyam, shivam, sundaram"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040520031402.53da5a56.adam.mclaurin>