Combining pkg and "traditional ports"
freebsd at edvax.de
Wed Jan 15 06:31:13 UTC 2014
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:23:59 +0100, Rolf G Nielsen wrote:
> On 2014-01-15 07:17, Polytropon wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:58:12 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 06:36:34 +0100
> >> Polytropon <freebsd at edvax.de> wrote:
> >>> With the upcoming OS standardization on pkg (pkgng) following
> >>> the abolishment of the pkg_* toolset I'd like to ask questions
> >> did I get something wrong or does this only affects the binary
> >> 'distribution'?
> >> As long as the ports are in place, png should have no impact on them.
> > No, you're right - ports and packages can still coexist with the
> > new tool. Programs like portupgrade and portmaster should also be
> > able to adapt to pkg (registering installed software and so on).
> >> But if you upgrade your system using packages, you will overwrite
> >> whatever is on the system and might destroy parts of it as the binary
> >> installed uses the wrong options.
> > That's what I've been fearing. Instead of specifying "nearly all"
> > packages manually, my idea would have been to "upgrade all with
> > the exceptions of".
> Check out portupgrade's -P option combined with the USE_PORTS_ONLY
> variable in pkgtools.conf.
I've been using that approach in the past with the pkg_* tools,
worked well except that I had to use custom scripts for better
selection. A similar option is portmaster -P and -PP to use
packages whenever possible. I just thought that I'd get rid of
port management tools _in addition to_ pkg, so all stuff can
be done with pkg with the few exceptions that rely on the
ports tree and involve the "make deinstall; make reinstall"
step for selected ports. :-)
Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0
Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
More information about the freebsd-questions