Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 09:09:13 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Polytropon <freebsd@edvax.de> Cc: Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Combining pkg and "traditional ports" Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1401150908460.81528@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <20140115071739.202648fd.freebsd@edvax.de> References: <20140115063634.d6d26d51.freebsd@edvax.de> <20140115135812.7863d575@X220.alogt.com> <20140115071739.202648fd.freebsd@edvax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 15 Jan 2014, 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@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". See pkg-lock(8) for this.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1401150908460.81528>