Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 15:53:28 -0500 From: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net> To: "Sean Chittenden" <sean@chittenden.org> Cc: "Miguel Mendez" <flynn@energyhq.homeip.net>, "Luiz Fernando Pasqual S. Souza" <pasquall@terra.com.br>, <knu@FreeBSD.org>, <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: FreeBSD Port: portupgrade-20020103 Message-ID: <004201c1e3f6$6e0fe540$d800a8c0@dwcjr> References: <3CB96D68.59698FD6@terra.com.br> <20020414171408.A90312@energyhq.homeip.net> <20020414161404.GA58869@leviathan.inethouston.net> <20020414125615.W34216@ninja1.internal>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> portversion -v -L= > > :~) portversion is included with the portupgrade package. -sc > The only problem I saw with portversion is that it checks against INDEX so when I run it I get things like bison-1.35 > succeeds port (port has 1.34_2) fetchmail-5.9.6_1 > succeeds port (port has 5.9.6) gettext-0.10.35_2 > succeeds port (port has 0.10.35_1) gettext-0.11.1_1 > succeeds port (port has 0.11.1) gmake-3.79.1_1 > succeeds port (port has 3.79.1) whereas pkg_version checks against INDEX and the port's Makefile Maybe this is something that could be added to portversion because it seems to run a lot faster. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?004201c1e3f6$6e0fe540$d800a8c0>