Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 21:18:03 -0700 From: Larry Sica <lsica1@home.com> To: Bzdik BSD <bzdik@yahoo.com> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Ports and Packages Mixture Message-ID: <20010520211803.A3416@cx408168-b.escnd1.sdca.home.com> In-Reply-To: <20010519212235.60872.qmail@web13604.mail.yahoo.com>; from bzdik@yahoo.com on Sat, May 19, 2001 at 02:22:35PM -0700 References: <15110.20116.161437.414956@guru.mired.org> <20010519212235.60872.qmail@web13604.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 19 May 2001 at 14:22:35 -0700, Bzdik BSD wrote:
> I asked this question before: why not incorporate [something like] apt
> from Debian?
>
> The only answer I got the last time that pkg_add is superior no matter
> what. Why does one need to delete both and then to re-install one of
> them? Most of you are administrators, wouldn't it save you some
> valuable time? Is it a "not made here" thing? This would be a killer:
>
> apt-get dist-upgrade
well you can tell FreeBSD to overwrite ports/pkg's on install. Look in
/etc/defaults/make.conf for the exact configuration option. It is
turned off by default
pkg_add is a vey good tool, all the pkg_ tools work well if you take the
time to understand them.
pkg_version, pkg_info, pkg_delete are three other parts of the whole.
The respective manpages have a wealth of information.
> please, enlighten in case I missed some fundamental Constitutional
> issue here. don't try "license" song, I said [something like] apt.
> last time Debian people raised the issue of possible incorporation
> FreeBSD kernel the excuse was the license "conflict", yet the
> underlying was the fear of losing control by some "authorities" among
> "leadership". Isn't FreeBSD free of this infantile crap? {dream on...}
If I recall it had more to do with the fact that the kernel and the
userland are tightly bound together. FreeBSD is not Linux. FreeBSD is
the whole OS not just a kernel. with sm> --- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> wrote:
And license is a very big deal. the GPL/LGPL has alot of baggage with what it affects if you choose this license so it is a big factor.
> > > Hello.
> > > My first priority for installing software is by using packages
> > and then
> > > the ports collection. If the package dependencies do not have a
> > package,
> > > I'll download those dependencies using the ports collection. My
> > questions
> > > are:-
> > > 1. Is it safe for me to mix the packages and ports systems?
> >
> > Yes, so long as you're careful not to install multiple versions of a
> > package.
> >
> > > 2. I have these 2 entries when I do a # pkg_info
> > > png-1.0.10
> > > png-1.0.7
> > > Do I need to delete the older png-1.0.7? Will the deletion cause
> > other
> > > applications to fail?
> >
> > I'd say yes to the first; others may say no. Definitely yes to the
> > second. To delete it safely, delete them both, then reinstall the one
> > you want to keep.
> >
> > > 3. After using the Ports Collection to install software, are the
> > software
> > > added to the packages system? (i.e. when I do a # pkg_info , will
> > the
> > > software be shown in this output)?
packages are precompile ports basically. I prefer ports since i prefer
building from source than installing a binary. Also ports are usually
much more current than packages.
--Larry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010520211803.A3416>