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

Kimmo Paasiala kpaasial at
Tue Aug 21 15:33:36 UTC 2012

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Kimmo Paasiala <kpaasial at> wrote:
> 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.

By 'any version' I mean 'a package with any combination of options' of
course, bad wording.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list