Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 15:08:07 +0100 From: Karl Pielorz <kpielorz_lst@tdx.co.uk> To: Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?=C5=81ukasz_W=C4=85sikowski?= <lukasz@wasikowski.net>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ports, pkg's confusion on upgrades... Message-ID: <91662F53ADC9367275BB972D@Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <930586B8-0400-481A-AE02-F49B325F870B@grem.de> References: <52652ABEC925BB93CB8877CD@Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk> <53EDE679.9050105@wasikowski.net> <2A69DCE1B30998B865D46192@Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk> <930586B8-0400-481A-AE02-F49B325F870B@grem.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On 15 August 2014 15:59 +0200 Michael Gmelin <freebsd@grem.de> wrote: > If it's only about two or three ports and those are leave ports (things > like nginx), mixing pkg and ports works ok in practice. This is currently the easiest option for us - I was hoping to install the ports, and just do 'pkg lock' to lock them... The thing that stumped me was why 'pkg upgrade' was trying to install additional packages (some of which on other machines will be 'locked' because they're built from ports). At this stage "pkg upgrade -d" would be good :) -Karl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?91662F53ADC9367275BB972D>