Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 07:17:39 +0100 From: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> To: Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com> Cc: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Combining pkg and "traditional ports" Message-ID: <20140115071739.202648fd.freebsd@edvax.de> In-Reply-To: <20140115135812.7863d575@X220.alogt.com> References: <20140115063634.d6d26d51.freebsd@edvax.de> <20140115135812.7863d575@X220.alogt.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:58:12 +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 15 Jan 2014 06:36:34 +0100 > Polytropon <freebsd@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". -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140115071739.202648fd.freebsd>