Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2018 19:51:11 +0100 From: Roland Smith <rsmith@xs4all.nl> To: Gerhard Schmidt <schmidt@ze.tum.de> Cc: FreeBSD Python <freebsd-python@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Installing a port to a specific python version Message-ID: <20180202185111.GA61808@slackbox.erewhon.home> In-Reply-To: <2d3a9040-4a0c-0210-f734-e71515320821@ze.tum.de> References: <6825a87e-60ec-f3bd-3368-2a6a519667bb@ze.tum.de> <20180201151021.GA52705@slackbox.erewhon.home> <799f50a9-4cb5-7e71-a3fb-bb030d80d864@ze.tum.de> <20180201215959.GB56934@slackbox.erewhon.home> <2d3a9040-4a0c-0210-f734-e71515320821@ze.tum.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 02, 2018 at 07:35:36AM +0100, Gerhard Schmidt wrote: > Am 01.02.2018 um 22:59 schrieb Roland Smith: > > If you look at pkg.freebsd.org you'll see that e.g. python packages are now > > built for each supported version of python. So you can now do things like:: > > > > # pkg install py36-aniso8601 > > > > and that will find and install the python 3.6 version of the package even > > though the default python is still 2.7. This is a huge win, IMHO. > > # pkg install py36-aniso8601 > > reports on my system > > Installed packages to be REMOVED: > xmlto-0.0.28 > w3m-0.5.3.20170102_1 > > New packages to be INSTALLED: > py36-aniso8601: 1.3.0 [FreeBSD] > py36-dateutil: 2.6.1 [FreeBSD] > py36-six: 1.11.0 [FreeBSD] > > Installed packages to be DOWNGRADED: > boehm-gc: 7.6.2 -> 7.6.0 [FreeBSD] > > Number of packages to be removed: 2 > Number of packages to be installed: 3 > Number of packages to be downgraded: 1 > > The operation will free 1 MiB. > 254 KiB to be downloaded. > > Why removing anything while installing new packages. Downgrading i could > understand if binaries are involved, but removing? The only explanation I can find is that currently, w3m is listed as vulnerable. That might target it for removal. Since it requires xmlto, that might also be removed if there are no other consumers. If this is the case, I'm in agreement that it is not a good thing. At the very least removing vulnerable packages should be an option. And IMO it should be *off* by default. > Sorry but pkg is only usable to install or update things if you only use > pkg. Installing packages via port kills pkg. I tend to use it for huge applications like firefox that I don't feel like building myself. > And BTW the same command has installed the correct package since pkg > exists. So flavors haven't improved anything here. Before flavors, the package building cluster only built packages for the default version of Python. > As said I'm doing this since mid 1990s and rely heavily on pkg when > installing new systems. Worked like charm since it arrived but only for > fresh install. After some month of updating and installing via ports the > problems shown above start to appear. An (unavoidable) problem is that the package building machines always lag behind ports. It takes time to build packages for all supported versions and architectures. My main gripe with pkg is that the command names are somewhat ambiguous. Like update/upgrade and add/install. > So i hope the portupgrade guys are fixing this soon. What I'm looking for is a way to only build a port if I've changed the options from the defaults, or if no package is available yet. If the options are not changed, and a package is available, that should be used to upgrade. I've already written a small Python script that compares the list of installed packages with the relevant (architecture/version) on pkg.freebsd.org. -- R.F.Smith http://rsmith.home.xs4all.nl/ [plain text email much appreciated]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20180202185111.GA61808>