Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 16:36:41 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey Bouquet <jeffreybouquet@yahoo.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pkgng woes Message-ID: <1352507801.98767.YahooMailClassic@web164001.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83-Ma%2Bt6SX4AU9M5gPsjr-WJoVqEP1zviWXT-Mfp5vCW9w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=0A=0A--- On Fri, 11/9/12, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> wrote:=0A=0A> Fro= m: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>=0A> Subject: Re: pkgng woes=0A> To: "Jeff= rey Bouquet" <jeffreybouquet@yahoo.com>=0A> Cc: "FreeBSD Mailing List" <fre= ebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, "Beeblebrox" <zaphod@berentweb.com>=0A> Date: Frid= ay, November 9, 2012, 11:09 AM=0A> On 9 Nov 2012 18:34, "Jeffrey=0A> Bouque= t" <jeffreybouquet@yahoo.com>=0A> wrote:=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> > --- On Fri= , 11/9/12, Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>=0A> wrote:=0A> >=0A> > > From: Ch= ris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com>=0A> > > Subject: Re: pkgng woes=0A> > > To: "B= eeblebrox" <zaphod@berentweb.com>=0A> > > Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org=0A>= > > Date: Friday, November 9, 2012, 8:18 AM=0A> > > On 9 Nov 2012 09:53, "= Beeblebrox"=0A> > > <zaphod@berentweb.com>=0A> > > wrote:=0A> > > >=0A> > >= > Pkgng, as a concept may be great, but it's=0A> not really=0A> > > workin= g - at least=0A> > > for=0A> > > > me:=0A> > > >=0A> > > > 1. pkg2ng conver= sion does not do a complete=0A> job and I=0A> > > have about half of=0A> > = > my=0A> > > > ports in purgatory or a quasi-installed=0A> state. The=0A> >= > program runs and is=0A> > > > installed but pkgdb does not have a record= =0A> for it. So=0A> > > my ports updates do=0A> > > a=0A> > > > half-ass jo= b.=0A> > > > 2. I am used to portmaster and I accept that=0A> > > portupgra= de is "more ready"=0A> > > to=0A> > > > be used with pkgng than portmaster.= However,=0A> portmaster=0A> > > has the=0A> > > > "--check-depends" option= which I would=0A> normally use to=0A> > > correct problem #1,=0A> > > > al= as I see no similar function in portupgrade=0A> or pkg.=0A> > > The "portup= grade=0A> > > -Ffu"=0A> > > > and "pkg check" commands don't do the trick= =0A> either.=0A> > > > 3. I have some ports that I never want to=0A> instal= l (like=0A> > > accessibility/atk=0A> > > or=0A> > > > net/avahi). The new = pkgtools.conf has a nice=0A> feature of=0A> > > IGNORE_CATEGORIES=0A> > > >= and HOLD_PKGS which I hope will allow me to=0A> "blacklist"=0A> > > those = ports but I=0A> > > > have my doubts as the knob is PKGS and not=0A> PORTS = - so=0A> > > we'll see.=0A> > > Separately=0A> > > > though, while trying t= o get my system pkgng=0A> complient=0A> > > and doing updates,=0A> > > > th= ere have been some ports which were pulled=0A> in that I=0A> > > whish to r= emove. As=0A> > > > in #2, portmaster --check-depends did a nice=0A> job of= =0A> > > this and allowed the=0A> > > > dependency to be removed from the p= ortsdb=0A> structure -=0A> > > so same problem here=0A> > > > as #2.=0A> > = > > 4. I know how to do +IGNOREME in the portsdb=0A> and that=0A> > > is a = very roundabout=0A> > > > way of solving an sqlite entry.=0A> > > > 5. pkg = add does not respect existing port=0A> version=0A> > > information on the= =0A> > > system.=0A> > > > If you try to install a package and its=0A> depe= ndencies,=0A> > > pkg tries to pull in=0A> > > > its own preferred version.= This happened for=0A> perl5 - I=0A> > > have 5.16 already=0A> > > on=0A> >= > > the system but pkg kept trying to install=0A> 5.14. The=0A> > > only s= olution was to=0A> > > use=0A> > > > the old "pkg-add -i" to install one-by= -one=0A> and without=0A> > > the dependencies.=0A> > > > Interesting how pk= gng does not have the -i=0A> (no-deps)=0A> > > option??=0A> > >=0A> > > Mix= ing versions with binary packages is a bad=0A> idea=0A> > > anyway.=A0 Pack= ages are=0A> > > built with a certain set of dependencies, and you=0A> can'= t mix=0A> > > and match (this=0A> > > has always been the case).=A0 If you = want to do=0A> this, use=0A> > > ports.=A0 Packages=0A> > > are designed to= work as a set, hence pkg upgrade=0A> just=0A> > > upgrades everything=0A> = > > to the latest version.=0A> > >=0A> >=0A> > Does that mean that, for exa= mple, when I upgraded a=0A> slew of=0A> > packages ( pkg_add -f ...) that d= epended upon=0A> pkg-config=0A> > but installed and theoretically now depen= ding upon=0A> pkgconf, that I'd=0A> > have to do them all by *ports* if usi= ng /pkg/ not=0A> /var/db/pkg?=0A> > That would seriously hinder fully half = of my upgrades,=0A> making them=0A> > last a magnitude of hours longer each= time...=0A> =0A> I'm afraid I haven't a clue what you're talking about. pk= gng=0A> is nothing to=0A> do with /pkg, and certainly nothing to do with pk= g_add.=0A> =0A> Chris=0A> _______________________________________________= =0A> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org=0A> mailing list=0A> http://lists.freebsd.or= g/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports=0A> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "free= bsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"=0A> =0ASorry. I was referring to 'you ca= n't mix and match', but I've=0Aalways done it more or less. (Here a feature= , not a bug... lower=0Apower CPU.s) I apologize for any confusion, just wa= nted to=0Ainquire if the "pkg_add -f" for dependencies, that are not=0Arun= time dependencies, which still allow installing a package;...=0AOtherwise, = in this instance, I'd have to somehow figure out which=0Aof the hundreds of= .tbz on a thumbdrive are with pkg-config; which=0Aare with pkgconf; greatl= y complicating what may be just several=0Ahours to do a slew of upgrades to= one CPU. Admittedly most FreeBSD=0Ausers may not face this situation. Ap= ologies if it is wasting =0Aanyone's time...=0A=0AJ. Bouquet
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1352507801.98767.YahooMailClassic>