From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 15 06:31:13 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 196171E0 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 06:31:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx01.qsc.de (mx01.qsc.de [213.148.129.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF9EE1E3F for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 06:31:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r56.edvax.de (port-92-195-149-155.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.149.155]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx01.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4159B3D177; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:31:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from r56.edvax.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by r56.edvax.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with SMTP id s0F6UfDP002663; Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:30:41 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:30:41 +0100 From: Polytropon To: Rolf G Nielsen Subject: Re: Combining pkg and "traditional ports" Message-Id: <20140115073041.7cd20ac4.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <52D6297F.6070002@gmail.com> References: <20140115063634.d6d26d51.freebsd@edvax.de> <20140115135812.7863d575@X220.alogt.com> <20140115071739.202648fd.freebsd@edvax.de> <52D6297F.6070002@gmail.com> 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=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 06:31:13 -0000 On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:23:59 +0100, Rolf G Nielsen wrote: > > > 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. I've been using that approach in the past with the pkg_* tools, worked well except that I had to use custom scripts for better selection. A similar option is portmaster -P and -PP to use packages whenever possible. I just thought that I'd get rid of port management tools _in addition to_ pkg, so all stuff can be done with pkg with the few exceptions that rely on the ports tree and involve the "make deinstall; make reinstall" step for selected ports. :-) -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...