pkgng vs. portupgrade reporting ports outdated

[Robert Huff]

"sindrome" <sindrome at 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