From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 5 19:02:57 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09E6016A41A for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:02:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mcc@fid4.com) Received: from mail102.csoft.net (mail102.csoft.net [205.205.219.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D550013C491 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:02:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mcc@fid4.com) Received: from [172.28.30.208] (westford-nat.juniper.net [66.129.232.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail102.csoft.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6FA1D0BF; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:02:44 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <46DEFD53.7080503@fid4.com> Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 15:02:43 -0400 From: "Michael C. Cambria" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <46DECE7F.3000909@fid4.com> <200709052053.24538.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> In-Reply-To: <200709052053.24538.fbsd.questions@rachie.is-a-geek.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Mel Subject: Re: /usr/ports & portupgrade when only using packages X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:02:57 -0000 Mel wrote: > On Wednesday 05 September 2007 17:42:55 Michael C. Cambria wrote: > >> I need to set up a system that can only use packages. I've always used >> ports, so I'm not exactly sure if I'm doing things properly. >> >> Should I (do I need to) use portsnap to populate /usr/ports? Unless I >> really need something that doesn't have a pkg available, I will not be >> using ports. >> >> I've always used portupgrade, and plan to do so, using -PP (only >> packages) for this setup. My first question is should I? >> > > It needs the ports tree to know which packages to *upgrade*. I know of no > ports management system that is able to use only binary and no ports tree. If > you need to save space, consider mounting /usr/ports via nfs. > > My goal isn't to save space. I don't have the cpu power to build all these (and multiple times) on each machine. Reading the man pages and the handbook about using packages didn't say anything about needing /usr/ports, so before I went and used portsnap etc. I thought I'd ask first. [deleted] > You could manage with pkg_add/pkg_delete, but then: > 1) *You* have to find out which packages are eligible for upgrading > 2) Upgrading a package will mean delete the old version before installing the > new one > 3) *You* will have to backup libraries manually. > > (Yes, I realize portupgrade does this) > Yup, that's the point of my wanting to use portupgrade ;-) It's worked OK for me since it's inception. Thanks, MikeC