pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule

Kimmo Paasiala kpaasial at
Tue Aug 21 15:26:37 UTC 2012

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Lawrence Stewart <lstewart at> wrote:
> On 08/21/12 17:04, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 07:05:49AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>>> On 21/08/2012 00:21, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:09:46AM +0300, Vitaly Magerya wrote:
>>>>> Baptiste Daroussin <bapt at> wrote:
>>>>>> Please [...] ask question about pkgng [...]
>>>>> What would be the best practice of mixing ports with packages?
>>>>> The use case I have in mind is compiling Xorg ports locally
>>>>> WITH_NEW_XORG and WITH_KMS, and using packages from
>>>>> for everything else. Is there some mixture of pkg
>>>>> and portmaster flags that allows this kind of setup?
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> freebsd-ports at mailing list
>>>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at"
>>>> There is no best practice for that unfortunatly, (as actually) the best for you
>>>> is maybe to build your own pkgng repostories?
>>>> for example?
>>>> We are open to suggestion here :)
>>> At the moment, it is about as tricky as mixing locally compiled ports
>>> with pkg_tools packages: ie. it might work, or it might leave you a
>>> quivering, sobbing mess lost in a pit of dark despair.
>>> One thing that should help is a proposal to record metadata like the SVN
>>> revision number of the ports tree used to build repository packages into
>>> the repository catalogue (repo.sqlite), so users can in principle check
>>> out the same revision locally to build their own ports.  Unfortunately
>>> no one has written that yet, and its probably too late for it to make it
>>> into release-1.0.
>> yes but it should definitly find its way to 1.1!
> Agreed, though ultimately we want to move to making mixing of ports &
> pkgs idiot-proof - something I suspect we're in better shape to do with
> pkgng. As a recently minted roadtester of pkgng and wanting to do the
> same as Vitaly without setting up Poudriere, I had to reverse engineer
> the ports tree svn revision to make sure I could mix and match from
> pkgbeta and stuff I built locally via ports with WITH_NEW_XORG and
> WITH_KMS. This becomes more annoying to manage going forward.
> So far I'm enjoying my pkgng experience for the most part and wish to
> thank all those involved in getting it to this stage.
> Cheers,
> Lawrence

What would be needed is a mechanism to query a package repository for
a package with both name and options  used to compile the package.
Let's say you have a port installed that requires another port but
that other port must be compiled with a certain option turned on. The
packaging system should be able to tell if the package available from
the remote repository satisfies the requirements or not. The current
system accepts any version of the package because it only looks at the
package name.

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list