From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 5 04:50:09 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 17E22C38 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 04:50:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "wonkity.com", Issuer "wonkity.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A39A8CF6 for ; Sat, 5 Apr 2014 04:50:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s354o7In042999 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 4 Apr 2014 22:50:07 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) with ESMTP id s354o6xq042996; Fri, 4 Apr 2014 22:50:07 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 22:50:06 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block To: Sindrome Subject: Re: pkgng vs. portupgrade reporting ports outdated In-Reply-To: <183E5BDE-0532-4C02-9E60-ED77F2E97A24@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <533F36F0.8020803@rcn.com> <000601cf505e$d3b6bc70$7b243550$@gmail.com> <001501cf5083$8dc109d0$a9431d70$@gmail.com> <183E5BDE-0532-4C02-9E60-ED77F2E97A24@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Fri, 04 Apr 2014 22:50:07 -0600 (MDT) Cc: "ports@freebsd.org" , Robert Huff 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: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 04:50:09 -0000 On Fri, 4 Apr 2014, Sindrome wrote: >> On Apr 4, 2014, at 11:09 PM, Warren Block wrote: >>> On Fri, 4 Apr 2014, sindrome wrote: >>> From: Warren Block [mailto:wblock@wonkity.com] >>>> 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 outdated and what pkgng says.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. > Okay so just 'pkg update' followed by 'pkg upgrade' after svn update? [Please stop top-posting, it makes replying to your messages more difficult.] No. If you want to use ports (I do), use ports. pkg will keep track of them. Commands like pkg info replace the old versions of those commands, like pkg_info. pkg update or pkg upgrade are only used when the user wants to use binary packages instead of ports.