From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Sep  9 16:55:23 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 CAFFB254
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Tue,  9 Sep 2014 16:55:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [198.74.231.69])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EA67824
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Tue,  9 Sep 2014 16:55:23 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [198.74.231.63])
 by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0BE746B8B
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Tue,  9 Sep 2014 12:55:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from fledge.watson.org (doug@localhost.watson.org [127.0.0.1])
 by fledge.watson.org (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s89GtMg7085307
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 12:55:22 -0400 (EDT)
 (envelope-from doug@fledge.watson.org)
Received: from localhost (doug@localhost)
 by fledge.watson.org (8.14.8/8.14.8/Submit) with ESMTP id s89GtMNW085304
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Tue, 9 Sep 2014 12:55:22 -0400 (EDT)
 (envelope-from doug@fledge.watson.org)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 12:55:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: doug <doug@fledge.watson.org>
Reply-To: doug@safeport.com
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: here we go again w/ pkg ....
In-Reply-To: <540F1F11.8010601@hiwaay.net>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1409091241230.43447@fledge.watson.org>
References: <540ED049.8010602@club-internet.fr> <540F1F11.8010601@hiwaay.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (BSF 23 2013-08-11)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3
 (fledge.watson.org [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 09 Sep 2014 12:55:22 -0400 (EDT)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 16:55:23 -0000


On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, William A. Mahaffey III wrote:

>>> I didn't do an actual ports update, just checked, using: portmaster -L
>>> |/  egrep '(ew|ort) version|total install' .... I guess that's enough to
>>> /mess up pkg ?
>
>> Why do you persist on the idea there is something messed up? You have a 
>> ports tree showing updated versions of some ports and official package 
>> repositories which are temporarily lagging behind, that?s all!
>> 
>> Hope it helps,
>> Juan
>
>
> Because I wasn't clear on the degree of connection between ports & pkgng, 
> possibly due to my noob status .... It'll clear up eventually ....

pkgng is simply an upgrade to the pkg_<command> set of commands. It did not 
change the relation between ports and packages. Once you have something 
installed it does not matter if you built it (ports) or installed it as a binary 
package.

If you install something really complex, say Xorg or KDE and then build 
some component and then sometime after that install a related package you can 
get some warning messages or even have some component replaced with an earlier 
version. BTW if I don't get it either, please, please chip in.