Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:57:44 -0800 From: Chris Stankevitz <chrisstankevitz@gmail.com> To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> Cc: cpet@sdf.org, freebsd-questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Do I want to switch to the new pkg(8) format? Message-ID: <CAPi0psvo6UOefnJczRkeQ5SpR2k0nSQ6h9Wq2cNyh5Jzr7xB2Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1412261056240.60313@wonkity.com> References: <CAPi0psuei36LjMFT_B7DF3dWhTz=RK28r-kxKdyeNJx1YSapdg@mail.gmail.com> <7813720d20f4ad81c083db7695df728b.squirrel@ma.sdf.org> <alpine.BSF.2.11.1412261056240.60313@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> wrote: > No, both binary packages and ports require pkg now. It is the only > supported package management tool, and installing ports *is* installing > packages. Warren, Thank you for your replies. I appreciate how careful you are being with your language. Keeping in mind that my FreeBSD vocabulary is not up-to-snuff, can you explain how these two statements can both be simultaneously true: "pkg is the only supported package management tool (and installing ports *is* installing packages)" -Warren Block "portmaster is the recommended tool for upgrading installed ports" -Handbook section 5.5.3.1 If both statement are indeed true, then I must conclude: 1. Upgrading ports is not a "package management" operation. 2. There are many different "operations" you can do with ports and packages. 3. Each "operation" might use a different tool. Sometimes pkg, portmaster, portsnap, make, cvs, pkg_, portsclean, portupgrade, etc. Thank you again, Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPi0psvo6UOefnJczRkeQ5SpR2k0nSQ6h9Wq2cNyh5Jzr7xB2Q>