From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 15 14:08:09 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03084958 for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 14:08:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.tdx.com (mail.tdx.com [62.13.128.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E89722AB for ; Fri, 15 Aug 2014 14:08:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk (storm.tdx.co.uk [62.13.130.251]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.tdx.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/) with ESMTP id s7FE86On001687 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 15 Aug 2014 15:08:06 +0100 (BST) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 15:08:07 +0100 From: Karl Pielorz To: Michael Gmelin 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> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?=C5=81ukasz_W=C4=85sikowski?= , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2014 14:08:09 -0000 --On 15 August 2014 15:59 +0200 Michael Gmelin 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