Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 22:09:48 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: sindrome <sindrome@gmail.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, 'Robert Huff' <roberthuff@rcn.com> Subject: RE: pkgng vs. portupgrade reporting ports outdated Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404042203030.42752@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <001501cf5083$8dc109d0$a9431d70$@gmail.com> References: <533F36F0.8020803@rcn.com> <000601cf505e$d3b6bc70$7b243550$@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404042016530.42337@wonkity.com> <001501cf5083$8dc109d0$a9431d70$@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 4 Apr 2014, sindrome wrote: > From: Warren Block [mailto:wblock@wonkity.com] > Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 9:23 PM > To: sindrome > Cc: 'Robert Huff'; ports@freebsd.org > Subject: RE: pkgng vs. portupgrade reporting ports outdated > > On Fri, 4 Apr 2014, sindrome wrote: > >> There is a major inconsistency with what pkg_version -v says is >> outdated and what pkgng says. > > Of course. pkg_version looks at the text files in /var/db/pkg, while pkg > looks at the database local.sqlite in that directory. The first step in > using pkg is running pkg2ng, which imports the old information from the text > files into the sqlite table. After that, pkg_version should not be used. > It's getting information from an outdated database. > > > So now the way to keep ports up-to-date is to execute 'pkg update' and 'pkg > upgrade'? > > Are you saying I shouldn't svn update the ports tree anymore? No, I did not say that. By switching from the old pkg_* tools to pkg, all you have done is changed which database is being used to track what is installed. Nothing else needs to change.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1404042203030.42752>