Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 18:49:20 -0400 From: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> To: "sindrome" <sindrome@gmail.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pkgng vs. portupgrade reporting ports outdated Message-ID: <533F36F0.8020803@rcn.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"sindrome" <sindrome@gmail.com> > With pkgng I issue a 'pkg update' followed by a 'pkg upgrade' and it > shows me x number of ports that need to be updated. So it updates > and completes just fine and of course it's much faster than building > from source. > > So I still keep my source, ports and docs in sync via svn update. > Here's where the issue comes in. After I have done the pkg upgrade > and it tells me all is up-to-date, the 'pkg_version -v |grep needs' > command shows me dozens of ports that are not up-to-date and further > the versions it's saying I have installed are not consistent with > the versions that were installed through pkgng. It is my understanding it is generally a bad idea to mix the old and new package systems. (It can be done, but it's beyond my pay grade and if you're asking this I'd guess it is - at the moment - beyond yours.) "pkgng" can do almost everything the old system can, and does it better. (Now if it only had a replacement for pkg_sort ....) Each records its status quo in distinct and incompatible ways. When I want to know what needs updating I use: huff>> pkg version -v -l \< which I can send either to a file, or to e-mail, or to a script wrapped around portmaster. Does this help? Respectfully, Robert Huff
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?533F36F0.8020803>