Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 18:37:21 -0500 From: "sindrome" <sindrome@gmail.com> To: "'Robert Huff'" <roberthuff@rcn.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: RE: pkgng vs. portupgrade reporting ports outdated Message-ID: <000601cf505e$d3b6bc70$7b243550$@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <533F36F0.8020803@rcn.com> References: <533F36F0.8020803@rcn.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 There is a major = inconsistency with what pkg_version -v says is outdated and what pkgng = says.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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000601cf505e$d3b6bc70$7b243550$>