From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Fri Sep 6 11:12:21 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68C1CF0858 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 11:12:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mout.kundenserver.de", Issuer "TeleSec ServerPass Class 2 CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46Pvz80gJQz4D5V for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 11:12:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from r56.edvax.de ([188.102.101.54]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue012 [212.227.15.167]) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 1MRk8w-1hhTOk0a3W-00TBrd; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 13:06:40 +0200 Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 13:06:37 +0200 From: Polytropon To: Mike Clarke Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, "@lbutlr" Subject: Re: Why i need extract not one needed port, but full catalog never needed ports? Message-Id: <20190906130637.8ebdca46.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <11703575.5MqMfjp4zD@curlew> References: <1567694626.722400563@f512.i.mail.ru> <20190905182710.9675eb8f.freebsd@edvax.de> <11703575.5MqMfjp4zD@curlew> Reply-To: Polytropon Organization: EDVAX X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; i386-portbld-freebsd8.2) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:kMc0icorkM39r72ChjdiXgPvfDK7bD+skjHCMOffAvAfwHosr11 05QjhZ/yr5tslPbpv10sN0VS5isOumxfEwPbR3kjA2IIqZYvwz50eBmLC0KulKf/0cz9bqM MMRWo68Qj/v9aUd713aBCFh4R6ZujkhYNJSfp5IzyYmXl1/Y+wbV08fU95VHV1w8Cx1xHIj xqA6j2hg+m9e9C4Rd+axQ== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:8oT8FSH3jAo=:H5TYpewDM1Uau6v6XbieEN 3Gp8i5k+gNUwTPCNavDWEspOFXERdRfFj4w/w+qYgREO3osxUWJNX5xc41W3u6gCFgoUh/Pkm cP4pYg0z5DByoWOJlD7mFLT1+be9tyoC/z2Sh1qdoYeJm0LUHiDvGl+bVJJzmvxBXV37DOQzK j69CWH8ifTYh6Zw6aHfc5sVDs5pRq5wTB6SBRX8kjUUAnCi9Sc3hM2j/rFqyJpZckBUDeaWJL hJMlrf4VWGBRgi12aIjQk5BkzG104WsiqPzKxUNHGqKNyke9ernqKhQhujOKYAeHrhoM24Xhn DVQ+lmiDZrT3ZS66CUWxRQ7y3AeD7bn/cB5pAUAPSZdvedjt4sAoKuMgu20O3omnJnApPbTCo /6QguTeEd0AngoCnit0hCur0eaBkQ5nKlgmNguoWztSbOxsfaP3Pw4PAP4LL02CmW96eqO2lB jUgLv5Oicodf1bKvGaFRL1HT0owSBDfN/UQIADvey1KTC4Ol3THf4LCgwf/bR4d3N8aT6bzLA 8Le3ti95TFfgqtEA+sN0++ygzqcXf1gW6+uQqQIovzsyVxzRVydOXW7ytMmleHdZx/HuP9msG 2jTGAsixpFEPBBrn1fS0JryP5Qn1BU69mBqz2K8m+z7a7kfXTKLgRkP2jDEu/ch/sgXPkx4p2 icXXnT6/oPBgwu9aZHQz+OGPGDg69j74mtNGWhDEQT2Lg55nUyMVK1exSVU+64nIoRXSL+7fe ta3R7/6jUSqNzSxE1LTztA9zb9zTxL+Be2vB/zO37PoB8eBaKiuGozzH0uiYowLFy7gjdOI6m ceIHuWPR4IqMluxBPJ2SA28ILFRSA== X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46Pvz80gJQz4D5V X-Spamd-Bar: ++++++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd@edvax.de has no SPF policy when checking 212.227.126.134) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd@edvax.de X-Spamd-Result: default: False [6.65 / 15.00]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[freebsd@edvax.de]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; HAS_ORG_HEADER(0.00)[]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[54.101.102.188.khpj7ygk5idzvmvt5x4ziurxhy.zen.dq.spamhaus.net : 127.0.0.11]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:8560, ipnet:212.227.0.0/16, country:DE]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.88)[0.879,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[edvax.de]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.82)[0.822,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(1.00)[0.998,0]; MID_CONTAINS_FROM(1.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[134.126.227.212.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; IP_SCORE(0.55)[ip: (1.98), ipnet: 212.227.0.0/16(-1.37), asn: 8560(2.17), country: DE(-0.01)] X-Spam: Yes X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 11:12:21 -0000 On Fri, 06 Sep 2019 09:41:04 +0100, Mike Clarke wrote: > On Thursday, 5 September 2019 22:22:20 BST @lbutlr wrote: > > > AFAIK, there’s no real good way to integrate a pkg install and a ports install. > > It works quite well if you sync your ports tree against the version > used for the current pkg repository. It does, but you have to do one of the following whenever your build options are different from the port's standard options: a) use "pkg lock" and "pkg unlock" in case of a pkg-based upgrade, and rebuild your custom port from synced-again sources, or b) use poudriere to create a custom repository which pkg uses when performing the upgrade. Depending on _how many_ custom ports you have, one solution is more convenient than the other. Also always keep in mind that introducing a non-standard feature (i. e., enabling one in "make config" that is not selected for the default configuration) might have an effect on other ports, either introducing new dependencies, or requiring another port to be built with a custom option. But that is nothing basically new, it was almost the same in ye olden times when portmaster and the pkg_* tools roamed the FreeBSD software ecosystem. ;-) > I have a couple of packages which I build from ports because > I need different options for one of them and the licensing > prevents the distribution of a binary for the other. I have > no problems building and installing them when I sync the ports > tree against the pkg repository. Exactly that is the typical case where "pkg install" from the default repository is not a solution. > An ideal alternative would be if the package system could have > a command which would return the SVN revision of the ports tree > used for building the current repository. That would be helpful. Checking out that particular version would be easier than grepping in ports' revision histories... By the way, this would probably fill the gap that portdowngrade left behind, i. e., when you know that version 1.2.7 was the last usable version of a particular program, but 1.8.1 is current, and you want to build 1.2.7 - either with the current version of the rest of the ports tree, or with the version that matched _that_ (older) version number, could be maybe because it contained libraries that have been removed in a later version of the tree. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...