From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 4 23:37:24 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CFFF985D for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 23:37:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-x230.google.com (mail-ie0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BE2728 for ; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 23:37:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f176.google.com with SMTP id rd18so3949888iec.7 for ; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 16:37:23 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=OIZL3VvUbNCm8ZaNulpclqA37LA5Q5eX6DdoaEGggfM=; b=x0Aj4kqN+ZUnihYYunQA/hovymWo6Fjg06yfZ5nqwxqx8sn8F68+tHJYRNH+wDx9k5 EOmM0aiZ46pYd1BGA+6VrY1AC/LHBeZVbejUSYckn8a5TpA/tn8xMLGaPJrJAZyK7ho8 mjEOemAlMM9xHnQ8dGjmLZlhvPZcD837WpHP8szDgm0CL5InqLHxV+xcl1kB5hvbWkb1 Ei9TaN+iWfu1jkJk8zDyxAd48E3SGzyotoyTg6BB1Wel+zXYctvKXc28aJc4hoeA4mWK HmPjn4yB2ztxdT1N2+5uyXg7cYCyfkNKCdVRM/S93Zr3hk2VlUrhM8UcLM2MRCWOQL0p b67Q== X-Received: by 10.50.62.211 with SMTP id a19mr6305821igs.46.1396654643182; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 16:37:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from SINDROME (c-50-178-125-248.hsd1.il.comcast.net. [50.178.125.248]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id jy4sm9511221igb.17.2014.04.04.16.37.22 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 04 Apr 2014 16:37:22 -0700 (PDT) From: "sindrome" To: "'Robert Huff'" References: <533F36F0.8020803@rcn.com> In-Reply-To: <533F36F0.8020803@rcn.com> Subject: RE: pkgng vs. portupgrade reporting ports outdated Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 18:37:21 -0500 Message-ID: <000601cf505e$d3b6bc70$7b243550$@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQFAmLT3AK3p1Tt5lpXS+3E115Pjc5wfi2Wg Content-Language: en-us Cc: ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 23:37:24 -0000 It is my understanding it is generally a bad idea to mix the old and = new package systems. (It can be done, but it's beyond my pay grade and = if you're asking this I'd guess it is - at the moment - beyond yours.) = "pkgng" can do almost everything the old system can, and does it better. = (Now if it only had a replacement for pkg_sort ....) Each records its = status quo in distinct and incompatible ways. When I want to know what needs updating I use: huff>> pkg version -v -l \< which I can send either to a file, or to e-mail, or to a script wrapped = around portmaster. Does this help? Thanks Robert, but that wasn't the question. There is a major = inconsistency with what pkg_version -v says is outdated and what pkgng = says. Pkgng is reporting that everything is up-to-date and pkg_version = is saying there are dozens of ports not up to date. I'd be more than = happy to use pkgng but it's clearly not seeing the same information as = pkg_version. =20