portupgrade weirdness

[Chris Dillon]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Buki wrote:

> I am begining to think there is something wrong with portutils
> (notice the difference between pkg_version and portversion):
>
> buki at dak2060:/usr/ports#portversion -v | grep -v =
> XFree86-libraries-4.3.0     <  needs updating (port has 4.3.0_1)
> cvsup-without-gui-16.1f     <  needs updating (port has 16.1g)
> ghostscript-gnu-7.05_3      <  needs updating (port has 7.05_4)
> portupgrade-20030308_2      >  succeeds port (port has 20030228)
>
> buki at dak2060:/usr/ports#pkg_version -v | grep -v =
> XFree86-libraries-4.3.0             <   needs updating (port has 4.3.0_1)
> cvsup-without-gui-16.1f             <   needs updating (port has 16.1g)
> fontconfig-2.1_6                    <   needs updating (port has 2.1_7)
> ghostscript-gnu-7.05_3              <   needs updating (port has 7.05_5)
> lftp-2.6.4                          <   needs updating (port has 2.6.5)
> mutt-devel-1.5.3                    <   needs updating (port has 1.5.4)
> net-snmp-5.0.6                      <   needs updating (port has 5.0.8)
> w3m-0.4                             <   needs updating (port has 0.4.1)

The difference is that portversion uses ports/INDEX to find "current"
information about the ports to be compared to the installed packages,
but pkg_version instead looks directly at the ports in question,
bypassing INDEX.  pkg_version is slower, but always correct.  Do a
'make index' in /usr/ports to make an up-to-date INDEX and then
compare them again.

-- 
 Chris Dillon - cdillon(at)wolves.k12.mo.us
 FreeBSD: The fastest and most stable server OS on the planet
 - Available for IA32 (Intel x86) and Alpha architectures
 - IA64, PowerPC, UltraSPARC, ARM, and S/390 under development
 - http://www.freebsd.org

No trees were harmed in the composition of this message, although some
electrons were mildly inconvenienced.