portversion and pkg_version have different opinions on current versions

[N.J. Mann]

In message <B787D58E-9157-48E7-ADF3-E8D54F8AF22F at exscape.org>,
	Thomas Backman (serenity at exscape.org) wrote:
> First off: not subscribed to this list, please make sure to Cc me or I  
> won't see your answers! :)
> 
> Oh, and I use portsnap, in crontab:
> 0 19 * * *  portsnap -I cron update
> 
> So, long story short:
> 
> [root at chaos ~]# pkgdb -aF
> --->  Checking the package registry database
> [root at chaos ~]# portversion -l '<'
> dnsmasq                     <
> ezm3                        <
> libtool                     <
> python26                    <
> [root at chaos ~]# pkg_version | awk '$2 !~ /=/'
> [root at chaos ~]# portupgrade -a
> [root at chaos ~]#

I do not have portversion on my system so I assume it is part of
portupgrade or some other tool.  I find pkg_version works fine for
letting me know what needs updating after doing a CVSup.  BTW you do not
need to use awk in the above, e.g.

pkg_version -L =

will show only those ports which are not up-to-date, RTFM for details.
:-)

Some years ago I tried using portupgrade, but had all sorts of problems
with its database getting corrupted.  In desparation I tried portmaster
and have been a very happy since.  (Thanks Doug!).

[...]
> I don't care overly much about having the bleeding-edge version, but  
> I'd rather not, as I currently have, use packages with known  
> vulnerabilities (I do know about portaudit, though, and will give that  
> a check). For instance, I just noticed yesterday that I needed to  
> upgrade apr, among about 6-7 other packages; the apr vulnerability had  
> been known for a while before I updated.

I think portaudit is definitely worth having installed.  You can always
ignore its warnings if you want to.

 
Cheers,
       Nick.
--