Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 23:08:29 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Carl Johnson <carlj@peak.org> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Handbook, upgrading ports incorrect with 10.0-RELEASE? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404102307100.51413@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <87k3aw4j5y.fsf@oak.localnet> References: <534520DE.5060005@relst.nl> <534565E9.8080109@relst.nl> <0558889B-6B6C-40E2-95DD-70DDA98B51F4@gmail.com> <4634538.SMM6loVsS1@amd.asgard.uk> <87k3aw4j5y.fsf@oak.localnet>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014, Carl Johnson wrote: > dgmm <freebsd01@dgmm.net> writes: > >> On Wednesday 09 April 2014 10:52:57 Matthew Pherigo wrote: >>> So you really want just to see the versions, and then you upgrade them by >>> hand. In that case, the correct option would indeed be "pkg version". >> >> pkg version is so sloooooow >> >> I use portversion from portupgrade package. It's much, much faster. >> >> portversion -l \< >> >> or >> >> portversion -L = > > I usually compare against the pkg repository with 'pkg version -RL=', or > you could compare against the INDEX file with 'pkg version -IL='. For portmaster: portmaster -L --index-only | egrep '(ew|ort) version|total install' Probably not as fast as the portupgrade version, but without the overhead.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1404102307100.51413>