On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:48:53 +0200 Thomas Backman <seren...@exscape.org> wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 2009, at 20:31, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > > > Thomas Backman wrote: > > [...] > >> [r...@chaos ~]# pkgdb -aF > >> ---> Checking the package registry database > >> [r...@chaos ~]# portversion -l '<' > >> dnsmasq < > >> ezm3 < > >> libtool < > >> python26 < > >> [r...@chaos ~]# pkg_version | awk '$2 !~ /=/' > >> [r...@chaos ~]# portupgrade -a > >> [r...@chaos ~]# > > [...] > > > > As was mentioned, you can use pkg_version -L =, or you can compare > > it with INDEX.db instead of ports tree: pkg_version -IL =. This is > > significantly faster. > > > > pkg_version -L = > > Usr: 7.286s Krnl: 3.984s Totl: 0:31.77s > > > > pkg_version -IL = > > Usr: 0.195s Krnl: 0.015s Totl: 0:00.21s > > > > And if you want to know the version of newer (available) port, you > > can use pkg_version -vIL = > > It gives you something like this: > > > > png-1.2.35 < needs updating (index has 1.2.38) > > postfix-2.5.6,1 < needs updating (index has 2.6.3,1) > > vim-lite-7.2.209 < needs updating (index has 7.2.239) > > > > Miroslav Lachman > 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). > > [r...@chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# portsnap -I fetch update >/dev/null > [r...@chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# pkg_version -vL= > [r...@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) > libtool-1.5.26 ! Comparison failed > postfix-2.6.2_1,1 < needs updating (index has > 2.6.3,1) > python26-2.6.2_1 < needs updating (index has > 2.6.2_2) > vnstat-1.7_2 < needs updating (index has 1.8) > vsftpd-ssl-2.1.2 < needs updating (index has 2.2.0) > [r...@chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# portupgrade -a > [r...@chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# ls -l /usr/ports/INDEX-* > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 17370624 Jul 31 19:45 /usr/ports/INDEX-5 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 19813792 Aug 15 20:42 /usr/ports/INDEX-6 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 19808537 Aug 15 20:42 /usr/ports/INDEX-7 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 34316288 May 8 10:35 /usr/ports/INDEX-7.db > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 19816190 Aug 15 20:42 /usr/ports/INDEX-8 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 1291821 May 30 12:06 /usr/ports/INDEX-8.bz2 > -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 34869248 Aug 14 19:30 /usr/ports/INDEX-8.db > [r...@chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# date > Sat Aug 15 20:43:07 CEST 2009 > [r...@chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# > > So... Using the index causes problems (or the opposite!). Could I be > using an index for something like HEAD despite not using that ports > tree? (Again, pretty new to this!) > I don't know how the INDEX files work, but I do know (thank you > DTrace) that INDEX-8 was the only one read during "pkg_version -vIL=". > Oh, and my understanding is that the INDEX-8 is fetched via portsnap? > Running the "fetch update" took less than 20 seconds (the cron job ran > about 2 hours ago, though), so I guess it cannot have been built (that > does take a lot of time, yes?)? > > Regards, > Thomas > Why not just add weekly_status_pkg_enable="YES" to /etc/periodic.conf.local and youll be informed of packages that need updating. Best regards. -- Jason J. Hellenthal +1.616.403.8065 jas...@dataix.net _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
