Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 11 May 2013 07:57:40 +0100
From:      Matthew Seaman <>
Subject:   Re: WANTED: Tool to verify installed package/port consistancy
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References:  <>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 10/05/2013 21:04, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
> Anyway, at the moment, and for me at least, my results remain entirely
> perplexing.  I cannot imagine what might possibly be the explanation fo=
> the results attached below.  If anyone can offer a theory, I'm all ears=
> Meanwhile, I'll be cleaning up my script a little bit and then, in shor=
> order I hope, posting it here so that others can perhaps give it a try =
> tell me if their results from it are at all similar to mine.

I'd very much like to see results from a pkgng system with an equivalent
number and types of packages and that has been maintained for a similar
amount of time.  But I think that's impossible: Ronald's machine almost
certainly predates the availability of pkgng.

Obviously the script would have to be modified, as you'll need to do a
DB query to get all the checksums, rather than reading +CONTENTS files.
 Plus this shouldn't be a system that was converted to pkgng but that
has used pkgng from the start.

One of the big drivers for switching to using sqlite in pkgng rather
than a collection of files is that it does give better protection
against accidental corruption of package meta-data during normal package



Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.

Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>