From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 15 20:58:43 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A92D3106564A; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:58:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 000.fbsd@quip.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B238FC43; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:58:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost.codelab.cz [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 914C419E044; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:58:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (r5bb235.net.upc.cz [86.49.61.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1CB5119E043; Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:58:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4A87217E.3040406@quip.cz> Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 22:58:38 +0200 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: cz, cs, en, en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Barton References: <4A86FF1E.1030705@quip.cz> <6B5B7698-CCD8-48FF-A5FB-0349D4CC1143@exscape.org> <4A870FD1.5070605@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4A870FD1.5070605@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Thomas Backman Subject: Re: portversion and pkg_version have different opinions on current versions X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:58:43 -0000 Doug Barton wrote: > Thomas Backman wrote: > > >>Thanks, guys! >>However, a new issue appeared... Kind of. I know I read something about >>portsnap and INDEX on the -current list recently, so I'm guessing this >>is related? Maybe not, though (see later in the mail). >> >>[root@chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# portsnap -I fetch update >/dev/null >>[root@chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# pkg_version -vL= >>[root@chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# pkg_version -vIL= >>curl-7.19.5_1 < needs updating (index has 7.19.6) >>dnsmasq-2.49_1 < needs updating (index has 2.49_2) >>ezm3-1.1_2 < needs updating (index has 1.2_1) > > > Can you check the files in your ports tree to see if they have the > older versions or the newer? You can either read the Makefiles or do this: > > cd /usr/ports/ftp/curl > make -V PKGNAME > > I suspect that somehow the INDEX file and your ports tree are out of > date, although my understanding was that this should not happen with > portsnap. Files in ports tree and INDEX are out of sync, because of the -I in portsnap command. The -I updates INDEX only! man portsnap: -I For the update command, update INDEX files, but not the rest of the ports tree. That's why portupgrade -a cannot upgrade anything, because ports tree doesn't have updated files. Solution: portsnap fetch update (This will update both INDEX + files) Miroslav Lachman PS: do not redirect output of the portsnap command to /dev/null and you will see, what portsnap is doing :)