Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 22:15:16 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Eduardo <emorrasg@yahoo.es> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Listing ports that have updates available Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1401132214120.90915@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <20140113185037.00004200.emorrasg@yahoo.es> References: <20140113060422.7139c675@scorpio> <20140113185037.00004200.emorrasg@yahoo.es>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 13 Jan 2014, Eduardo wrote: > El Mon, 13 Jan 2014 06:04:22 -0500 > Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> escribió: >> I use to use the following to get a list of ports that needed >> updating: >> >> /usr/sbin/pkg_version -vIL= >> >> Since updating to FreeBSD 10.0-RC3 that option is no longer available. >> Presently, I am using a quick hack to get a list applications that >> have updates available for them: >> >> portversion -v | grep -i "<" >> >> Is there a better method available? I compile all of the software on >> my machine. I don't use "pkg" to install anything. >> > > I use > > portmaster -L | grep New > > Don't know if it's better or faster or more accurate. I use portmaster -L --index-only | egrep '(ew|ort) version|total install' From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 14 09:06:47 2014 Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F20D9DF for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:06:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org [192.94.73.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D83091F2C for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:06:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from sdf.org (IDENT:bennett@sdf.lonestar.org [192.94.73.15]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.7/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0E96biO016952 (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:06:38 GMT Received: (from bennett@localhost) by sdf.org (8.14.7/8.12.8/Submit) id s0E96bbd013424; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:06:37 -0600 (CST) From: Scott Bennett <bennett@sdf.org> Message-Id: <201401140906.s0E96bbd013424@sdf.org> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 03:06:37 -0600 To: erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com Subject: Re: 9.2-RELEASE kernel ignores MBR on boot disk References: <201401120855.s0C8tb5I022973@sdf.org> <20140112175557.1f666aff@X220.alogt.com> <201401121053.s0CAr3Uq011648@sdf.org> <20140112201153.2938604a@X220.alogt.com> <201401121253.s0CCrTe9015766@sdf.org> <20140112220828.1e489c27@X220.alogt.com> In-Reply-To: <20140112220828.1e489c27@X220.alogt.com> User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.4 7/29/08 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>, <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/>; List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:06:47 -0000 Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com> wrote: > On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 06:53:29 -0600 > Scott Bennett <bennett@sdf.org> wrote: > > > Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 04:53:03 -0600 > > > Scott Bennett <bennett@sdf.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I only installed 9.2 once but did not face any problems with > > > > > MBR. > > > > > > > > > Did your boot drive have a MBR on it? Or a GPT label? > > > > > > > it was also MBR and not GPT. But I made a fresh install and did not > > > do an upgrade via sources. > > > > > Hmmm... Did the stage 2 boot loader change in some important > > way for i386 between 8.x and 9.2? I would not have thought that > > putting stuff into /dev would have depended upon anything in the > > loader. Other than the loader, what else does installkernel leave > > unchanged? BTW, I just realized that I forgot to mention in my > > original message that the first 9.2-RELEASE kernel I tried was built > > with both > > > I upgraded one machine from 8.x via sources to 10 around June/July 2012 > without any problems. Interesting. There are some pitfalls to using GPT, largely as a result of the placement of the backup copy of the partition map, that I really do not want to convert the boot disk if I don't have to. > > > options GEOM_PART_GPT > > > > and > > > > options GEOM_PART_MBR > > > > When that didn't work, I tried commenting out the first of those > > (GPT), which was the way I had had them in my 8.2-STABLE kernel. The > > change made zero difference that I could see. The messages at the > > point of failure were the same either way. > > I have both on 10 and have no problems with it since I have both. Well, I'll hold off on 10 if possible until 10.1. I'm on my own here and have enough problems without reaching for the bleeding edge. > > It all sounds weird to me. But you can use gpart to install the loaders > from 9.2 for a try. > However, if the 9.2 boot loaders have changed, will they still work with my 8.2 kernel if and when I have to revert again? This is my boot drive we're discussing here after all. Anyway, thanks much for your thoughts. Maybe one of the kernel developers will get around to commenting. Otherwise maybe I'll have to try to submit a PR and wait a few months more. I suppose in the meantime I could try 8.4, too. Sigh. Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG ********************************************************************** * Internet: bennett at sdf.org *or* bennett at freeshell.org * *--------------------------------------------------------------------* * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * * -- a standing army." * * -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * **********************************************************************
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1401132214120.90915>