From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 14 15:10:06 2013 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 73CBB4CE; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:10:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from be-well.ilk.org (be-well.ilk.org [23.30.133.173]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E1692306; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:10:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix, from userid 1147) id 2ACBF33C25; Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:10:05 -0500 (EST) From: Lowell Gilbert To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Updating from 9.2 to 10.0-BETA3 Issues.. References: <044201cee0ee$c0bc0970$42341c50$@leadmon.net> <8E.9E.19454.0E854825@cdptpa-oedge03> <20131114151926.1113010f.freebsd@edvax.de> Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 10:10:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20131114151926.1113010f.freebsd@edvax.de> (Polytropon's message of "Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:19:26 +0100") Message-ID: <444n7fxbn6.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2013 15:10:06 -0000 Polytropon writes: > On Thu, 14 Nov 2013 05:00:16 +0000, Thomas Mueller wrote: >> You are advised to rebuild all ports on a major version change >> such as 9.x to 10.x. > > Or if you can't or intendedly refuse, use the compat9x port. > But be careful when starting to install new programs: Mixing > old and new ones can get really terrible, so the suggestion > of re-installing all ports is probably the better one. The intended use case is actually a combination of the two. That is, you use the compatibility shims *while* you're rebuilding all of your ports. If your rebuild tool gets the dependency tree correct, then you will almost certainly have all of the ports working through the whole ports-upgrade procedure. Once all of your ports have been updated, you can (of course) then remove the compatbility shims. >> You will want to be sure to install ports-mgmt/pkg and >> ports-mgmt/portmaster at the start of rebuilding all ports. >> >> FreeBSD has switched from pkgtools to pkgng, on by default >> in FreeBSD 10.0, hence the need for ports-mgmt/pkg. > > In that case, if I may ask, why didn't pkg become part of > the OS then if it's the system's package management system? Because it's more tightly tied to the ports tree than it is to anything in the base system. By putting it in ports, new features can be added without waiting for the next release. If it were in the base system, the ports tree would have to remain backward-compatible with the version of pkg included in every version of FreeBSD, right up until its end-of-life. > Such as the old pkg_* tools were part of the OS distribution, > why does 10.0 still require additional software to get "matters > of the OS" running? The same question can be asked about the > transition from CVS to SVN, where CVS:SVN == csup:? ... :-) I don't think your definition of "matters of the OS" is precise enough to argue over directly. I suspect there are more opinions on the topic than there are people who've thought about it. As far as a csup replacement per se, most of its users are better served by freebsd-update than by svnup, so it's not really equivalent. pkg(8) is a special case; there is a version in the base system to bootstrap the support appropriate to whatever version of the ports tree is present. We've wandered far enough afield that I'm redirecting the discussion to -chat. Be well.