Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 20 May 2001 21:18:03 -0700
From:      Larry Sica <lsica1@home.com>
To:        Bzdik BSD <bzdik@yahoo.com>
Cc:        questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Ports and Packages Mixture
Message-ID:  <20010520211803.A3416@cx408168-b.escnd1.sdca.home.com>
In-Reply-To: <20010519212235.60872.qmail@web13604.mail.yahoo.com>; from bzdik@yahoo.com on Sat, May 19, 2001 at 02:22:35PM -0700
References:  <15110.20116.161437.414956@guru.mired.org> <20010519212235.60872.qmail@web13604.mail.yahoo.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 19 May 2001 at 14:22:35 -0700, Bzdik BSD wrote:
> I asked this question before: why not incorporate [something like] apt
> from Debian?
> 
> The only answer I got the last time that pkg_add is superior no matter
> what. Why does one need to delete both and then to re-install one of
> them? Most of you are administrators, wouldn't it save you some
> valuable time? Is it a "not made here" thing? This would be a killer: 
>              
>                   apt-get dist-upgrade 

well you can tell FreeBSD to overwrite ports/pkg's on install.  Look in
/etc/defaults/make.conf for the exact configuration option.  It is
turned off by default

pkg_add is a vey good tool, all the pkg_ tools work well if you take the
time to understand them.

pkg_version, pkg_info, pkg_delete are three other parts of the whole.
The respective manpages have a wealth of information.

> please, enlighten in case I missed some fundamental Constitutional
> issue  here. don't try "license" song, I said [something like] apt.
> last time Debian people raised the issue of possible incorporation
> FreeBSD kernel the excuse was the license "conflict", yet the
> underlying was the fear of losing control by some "authorities" among
> "leadership". Isn't FreeBSD free of this infantile crap? {dream on...}

If I recall it had more to do with the fact that the kernel and the
userland are tightly bound together.  FreeBSD is not Linux.  FreeBSD is
the whole OS not just a kernel. with sm> --- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> wrote:

And license is a very big deal.  the GPL/LGPL has alot of baggage with what it affects if you choose this license so it is a big factor.


> > > Hello.
> > >    My first priority for installing software is by using packages
> > and then 
> > > the ports collection. If the package dependencies do not have a
> > package, 
> > > I'll download those dependencies using the ports collection. My
> > questions 
> > > are:-
> > > 1. Is it safe for me to mix the packages and ports systems?
> > 
> > Yes, so long as you're careful not to install multiple versions of a
> > package.
> > 
> > > 2. I have these 2 entries when I do a # pkg_info
> > >    png-1.0.10
> > >    png-1.0.7
> > >    Do I need to delete the older png-1.0.7? Will the deletion cause
> > other 
> > > applications to fail?
> > 
> > I'd say yes to the first; others may say no. Definitely yes to the
> > second. To delete it safely, delete them both, then reinstall the one
> > you want to keep.
> > 
> > > 3. After using the Ports Collection to install software, are the
> > software 
> > > added to the packages system? (i.e. when I do a # pkg_info , will
> > the 
> > > software be shown in this output)?

packages are precompile ports basically.  I prefer ports since i prefer
building from source than installing a binary.  Also ports are usually
much more current than packages.

--Larry

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010520211803.A3416>