Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 16:17:52 -0400 From: Steve Tremblett <sjt@cisco.com> To: Jon Noack <noackjr@compgeek.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: portversion weirdness Message-ID: <20020619161752.P7674@sjt-u10.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <20020619101907.20669.h002.c015.wm@mail.compgeek.com.criticalpath.net>; from noackjr@compgeek.com on Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 10:19:06AM -0700 References: <20020619101907.20669.h002.c015.wm@mail.compgeek.com.criticalpath.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
+---- Jon Noack wrote: | > When I run portversion, I see that well over half of my installed ports | > are listed with ">" (ie. installed version is more recent than version | > in /usr/ports). I am sure cvsup is updating /usr/ports for me, and I | > am sure "make index" is making /usr/ports/INDEX. pkgdb -F and pkgdb -u | > seem to work fine. | | The portversion man page says to run 'portsdb -U' to update the INDEX. | This takes an exceedingly long amount of time (for me), so I just use | pkg_version instead. It checks the ports Makefile directly, and although | it takes a little longer to run, is always accurate. From the pkg_version | man page: After playing around with every possible way to regenerate the INDEX and package database, I upgraded portupgrade. After regenerating the database to be compatible with the new version, everything looks good. -- Steve Tremblett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020619161752.P7674>