Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 08:23:02 -0500 From: "William A. Mahaffey III" <wam@hiwaay.net> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pkg upgrade question .... Message-ID: <542EA336.1080709@hiwaay.net> In-Reply-To: <20141003115436.70a5446a@elena.home> References: <542D601F.1030104@hiwaay.net> <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" <wam@hiwaay.net> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > 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: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?542EA336.1080709>