Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:11:15 -0700 From: Curtis Vaughan <curtis@npc-usa.com> To: "Donald J. O'Neill" <donaldj1066@fastmail.fm> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port upgrading - my way Message-ID: <C63A4B10-0C12-11D9-B049-000393934006@npc-usa.com> In-Reply-To: <200409211422.10752.donaldj1066@fastmail.fm> References: <451E9011-0BF5-11D9-B049-000393934006@npc-usa.com> <200409211422.10752.donaldj1066@fastmail.fm>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
OK, I took Donald on with his test and this is what I got: Here's my INDEX-5 info before running portversion 4947853 Mar 15 2004 INDEX-5 and here it is after 5804696 Sep 21 13:54 INDEX-5 So, a definite change. And when I ran portversion -vL= the first time, I got the info provided immediately below. But the second time I ran portversion -vL= there was not output. So, what exactly does that mean? and does that mean that now I should run portupgrade -a now? apache-1.3.31_6 > succeeds port (port has 1.3.29_3) bandwidthd-1.2.1 > succeeds port (port has 1.2.0_1) bash-2.05b.007_2 > succeeds port (port has 2.05b.007) bsdiff-4.2 > succeeds port (port has 4.1) expat-1.95.8 > succeeds port (port has 1.95.7) ezm3-1.2 > succeeds port (port has 1.1_1) freebsd-update-1.6 > succeeds port (port has 1.5) freetype2-2.1.7_3 > succeeds port (port has 2.1.5_2) gd-2.0.25,1 > succeeds port (port has 2.0.15_1,1) jpeg-6b_3 > succeeds port (port has 6b_1) libiconv-1.9.2_1 > succeeds port (port has 1.9.1_3) libtool-1.5.8 > succeeds port (port has 1.5.2_1) m4-1.4.1 > succeeds port (port has 1.4_1) openldap-client-2.2.15 > succeeds port (port has 2.2.6) p5-Net-SSLeay-1.25 > succeeds port (port has 1.23) pam_ldap-1.7.1_1 > succeeds port (port has 1.6.7_1) perl-5.8.5 > succeeds port (port has 5.8.2_5) png-1.2.6 > succeeds port (port has 1.2.5_3) popt-1.7 > succeeds port (port has 1.6.4_2) portupgrade-20040701_3 > succeeds port (port has 20040208) postfix-2.1.4,1 > succeeds port (port has 2.0.18,1) rsync-2.6.2_3 > succeeds port (port has 2.6.0) ruby-1.8.2.p2_1 > succeeds port (port has 1.8.1_2) samba-2.2.11_1 > succeeds port (port has 2.2.8a_1) sudo-1.6.8.1 > succeeds port (port has 1.6.7.5) unzip-5.51 > succeeds port (port has 5.50_2) webmin-1.150_5 > succeeds port (port has 1.130_10) On 21 Sep, 2004, at 12:22, Donald J. O'Neill wrote: > On Tuesday 21 September 2004 12:40 pm, Curtis Vaughan wrote: > I just want to know whether there is any reason I >> shouldn't be doing it this way. In other words, by doing it this >> way is there a potential problem or error that my result? >> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Yes, there is. As far as I can tell from what you've given, you're > depending on INDEX-5 to be up to date after your ports upgrade. I > don't believe it is and you need to run make index or some other > means of getting INDEX-5 to be up to date.. > > Try this experiment: > cvsup your ports > note the date and size of /usr/ports/INDEX-5 > run " portversion -vL=" or portversion -rRvc > keep track of that output > now cd /usr/ports > make index > note the date and size of INDEX-4 > run portversion -vL= or portverstion -rRvc > > I think you'll see a lot more of your installed stuff needs > updating. > > Don > -- > Donald J. O'Neill > donaldj1066@fastmail.fm > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C63A4B10-0C12-11D9-B049-000393934006>