From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 31 04:12:11 2013 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 ESMTP id BBB86950 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 04:12:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Received: from mx02.qsc.de (mx02.qsc.de [213.148.130.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80E5A2CF5 for ; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 04:12:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from r56.edvax.de (port-92-195-117-74.dynamic.qsc.de [92.195.117.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx02.qsc.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A8E324C45; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 05:12:03 +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 r9V4BrUD005122; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 05:11:54 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from freebsd@edvax.de) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 05:11:53 +0100 From: Polytropon To: David Newman Subject: Re: Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng Message-Id: <20131031051153.e0ca0cf8.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <5271D5BA.9060004@networktest.com> References: <5271BC11.1010303@FreeBSD.org> <5271D5BA.9060004@networktest.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: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: Polytropon List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 04:12:11 -0000 On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:59:54 -0700, David Newman wrote: > > > On 10/30/13 7:10 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote: > > > You can now either continue to use ports with portmaster/portupgrade, as > > before or switch to using binary packages only. > > Is this really an "or" or is it an "and"? > > For example, can a system use binary packages for most things, but use > portmaster or portupgrade on those ports where some special config > options are needed? To extend the question, does the traditional method of using ports (without portmaster et al.) also seem to stop working? I'd like to emphasize that the constellation you mentioned isn't that uncommon. Take mplayer, for example; in order to make it work properly (i. e., all codecs plus mencoder), it's still required to compile it. My idea would be that I can use pkg to install everything that's needed as a runtime dependency, and only have a "make install" run for mplayer with a custom Makefile.local (or going through "make configure" for that matter). Localized ports (e. g. LibreOffice with german language) could also fall into the category of "still needs compiling"... To be honest, there may be only a few things that need a manual "make install" run, but those could actually be essential. How does this interact with a system that uses pkg for all other needs? The old pkg_* tools worked well in such a constellation, even though it might be required to recompile some dependent ports (according to the non- default options that have been chosen), but in general, that was no big deal. Will it start being a problem now? -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...