From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 15 06:24:04 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06DF2CA9 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 06:24:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-la0-x229.google.com (mail-la0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E32C1DD6 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 06:24:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-la0-f41.google.com with SMTP id mc6so1079776lab.0 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:24:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:disposition-notification-to:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=+no6Z3bW6DFuM6hR1lMiQzS8dw6+nasJpRbQ1bUUJWM=; b=RGU0tufca3v8l41S7iqwYH0If0hGXYIvUKhvtNvx540Xw/ii2Y0K0MRlsebGPgj6Ji 3TY87wxRWyTfp/WNb4oI/hWHGO6G4Cgco17sOY3AY1Py+wdzCR8/9O+xHNrzPj+q5hmb +w8BG+NhEXqAlDYGRWTKv5Gyh7qi6HRMVW2kNZOcTJNfBPJhy/dxU/oafX/Pt9Qzlqrb RyDA4aK7fdkHwvsfzxZtx1UlQ2aIEhCO2cFIjrvvdptUupFe+NOybYx9lzUebXTHT1nf P5f4Ah8Dcyc/U+zYTO7OrOJ5m+ULKVrX18arW3giqUiGQ1CommnOacL3tq6TOPsacU0u 84mA== X-Received: by 10.152.4.230 with SMTP id n6mr282606lan.1.1389767041564; Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:24:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from lazlar.no-ip.biz (c-6380e355.09-42-6e6b7010.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se. [85.227.128.99]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id c15sm1757842lbq.11.2014.01.14.22.24.00 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 14 Jan 2014 22:24:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52D6297F.6070002@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:23:59 +0100 From: Rolf G Nielsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Combining pkg and "traditional ports" References: <20140115063634.d6d26d51.freebsd@edvax.de> <20140115135812.7863d575@X220.alogt.com> <20140115071739.202648fd.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20140115071739.202648fd.freebsd@edvax.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 06:24:04 -0000 On 2014-01-15 07:17, Polytropon wrote: > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:58:12 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 06:36:34 +0100 >> Polytropon wrote: >> >>> With the upcoming OS standardization on pkg (pkgng) following >>> the abolishment of the pkg_* toolset I'd like to ask questions >> >> did I get something wrong or does this only affects the binary >> 'distribution'? >> >> As long as the ports are in place, png should have no impact on them. > > No, you're right - ports and packages can still coexist with the > new tool. Programs like portupgrade and portmaster should also be > able to adapt to pkg (registering installed software and so on). > > > >> But if you upgrade your system using packages, you will overwrite >> whatever is on the system and might destroy parts of it as the binary >> installed uses the wrong options. > > That's what I've been fearing. Instead of specifying "nearly all" > packages manually, my idea would have been to "upgrade all with > the exceptions of". > > Check out portupgrade's -P option combined with the USE_PORTS_ONLY variable in pkgtools.conf.