portversion and pkg_version have different opinions on current versions

[Jason J. Hellenthal]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 20:48:53 +0200
Thomas Backman <serenity at exscape.org> wrote:

> 
> On Aug 15, 2009, at 20:31, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
> 
> > Thomas Backman wrote:
> > [...]
> >> [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 ~]#
> > [...]
> >
> > 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).
> 
> [root at chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# portsnap -I fetch update >/dev/null
> [root at chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# pkg_version -vL=
> [root at 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)
> [root at chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# portupgrade -a
> [root at 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
> [root at chaos /usr/ports/ports-mgmt]# date
> Sat Aug 15 20:43:07 CEST 2009
> [root at 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
jasonh at DataIX.net