Upgrading Ports on 5.3

[Alex Zbyslaw]

RW wrote:

>On Wednesday 14 June 2006 11:12, Alex Zbyslaw wrote:
>
>  
>
>>[portversion -L =] would be quicker.  Any > needs upgrading.  Any < would mean you somehow
>>had an installed version newer that the port version!
>>    
>>
>
>Presumably that could happen if the port were reverted.
>
For completeness, looks like I got it backwards:

     <       The installed version of the package is older than the current
             version.

     >       The installed version of the package is newer than the current
             version.  This situation can arise with using an out-of-date
             INDEX file, or when testing new ports.

And yes, a reverted port would do it too, I expect.

And my system shows tons of >  (which is what confused me) whereas 
pkg_version shows lots of =.  Looks like you have to be religious about 
keeping INDEX up to date.

pkg_version -L =

is functionally equivalent, slower, but doesn't require up-to-date INDEX 
(which just takes too long to build and I usually forget or can't be 
bothered).

portversion -> tidy completists
pkg_version -> lazy sods like me

--Alex