Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 03 Oct 2014 08:23:02 -0500
From:      "William A. Mahaffey III" <>
Subject:   Re: pkg upgrade question ....
Message-ID:  <>
In-Reply-To: <20141003115436.70a5446a@elena.home>
References:  <> <20141003115436.70a5446a@elena.home>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On 10/03/14 05:54, TonyMc wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2014 09:24:31 -0500
> "William A. Mahaffey III" <> wrote:
>> .... I converted from using linux-f10 to using linux-c6 for linux
>> compatibility earlier this week. There were no linux-c6 pkg's, so I
>> used ports to do that install, & I also 'pkg delete'-ed all of
>> linux-f10 in the process. I just did a 'pkg upgrade -y' & it deleted
>> all of the installed linux-c6 stuff & reinstalled linux-f10 !!!! I
>> would like to believe this was pilot error, but that is getting to be
>> a bit of a stretch .... I can & will manually clean up the mess, but
>> WTF is going on here w/ pkg ? That behavior is 100% counter-intuitive
>> to me, bug ?
> Dear William,
> this was indeed pilot error.  You should get into the habit of
> reading /usr/ports/UPDATING.  The relevant entry states (22 Sep.): "The
> complete drop-in replacement linux-c6 port infrastructure is in ports
> and will shortly replace the current linux-f10- ports as default."
> The "will shortly" is key there.  The ports system makes software
> available for you to compile and install. You can start using linux-c6
> ports before they become the default, but you must understand that that
> is your decision, and by doing so you are departing from "the default".
> If you then try to "pkg upgrade" pkg will install the most recently
> available packages for the ports you have installed.  Since there are
> no linux-c6 packages available yet (though presumably it will not be
> long), pkg resolved your software dependencies on linux emulation using
> linux-f10 packages, which were available.  If you had waited until
> linux-c6 became the default, you would have been fine.
> I have read a number of your messages over the last few weeks and it
> seems to me you still have a problem grasping the relationship between
> ports and packages.  (I hope I have not misunderstood you.)  You need
> to understand that ports are recipes for configuring, building and
> installing software (usually involving compilation, linking and
> installation), while packages are recipes for adding
> already-configured-and-built software to your system.  The "already"
> part of that description means that someone, somewhere has to have done
> the configuration, compilation and linking steps.  That takes a finite
> time.  When multiplied by the number of available ports (more than
> 20,000) you can see why the availability of packages lags behind the
> availability of the recipes in the ports tree.

1st, thx for a thoughtful & detailed response. You are indeed correct 
that I am still a bit opaque on pkg/ports. I do understand the diff 
between ports compiling (probably very new) stuff up from scratch vs. 
pkg supplying already-compiled-&-packaged software. What I didn't expect 
was the behavior of pkg actually deleting already-compiled-&-installed 
linux-c6 ports packages (& reinstalling linux-f10 stuff that I had 
explicitly deleted). I didn't know that there was a cross-dependency 
(maybe bad word choice) such that linux-f10 pkg's could resolve other 
dependencies from other software on the linux-c6 ports package.

> I hope that helps.  I suggest you choose between ports and
> packages (there are exceptions for some programs, for which you really
> need non-default options).  If you prefer to use the newest version as
> soon as it becomes available, and you can live with the work of choosing
> configuration options, building and installing, you need to use ports.
> But if you can wait a few days and accept the default options, pkg
> upgrade will make your life a lot easier.

I definitely prefer pkg, I am only using ports for flash support for 
browsers (req'd by both opera & firefox), *nothing* else. I am striving 
to use only pkg to keep my userland packages updated. It's just that 
infernal flash coding that puts me into ports. I am also still a bit 
hazy on the cross interaction between ports-packages & pkg's, but 
hopefully that will come. I think I already understood most of the 
points you made above, but maybe not.

> Just as an aside: you seem very keen to use linux emulation on
> FreeBSD.  Why is that?  What are you missing that requires the
> compatibility layer?
> Best,
> Tony
> _______________________________________________
> mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to ""

I am only using the linux emulation for flash plugin for browsers, 
that's *it*, nothing else.


	William A. Mahaffey III


	"The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war
	 ever devised by man."
                            -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.

Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <>