Sam Fourman Jr.
2014-Sep-02 01:39 UTC
[HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
> > And for the portsnap users? > >In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users. Portsnap is a tool that used to obtain a copy of the ports tree. Portsnap is only one way, another way to get a copy of the ports tree is by using subversion and checking it out by using the svn command. pkg(8) is a package management tool, and to make use of most packages having a copy of the ports tree is not required.> > > -- > Michelle Sullivan > http://www.mhix.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org" >-- Sam Fourman Jr.
Michelle Sullivan
2014-Sep-02 01:51 UTC
[HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:>> And for the portsnap users? >> >> >> > In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users. >Sure about that?> Portsnap is a tool that used to obtain a copy of the ports tree. >try this: portsnap fetch update && cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/pkg && make install If you *haven't* install pkg first...> Portsnap is only one way, another way to get a copy of the ports tree is by > using subversion and checking it out by using the svn command. >Not much good if you haven't installed svn already...> pkg(8) is a package management tool, and to make use of most packages > having a copy of the ports tree is not required. > >Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it, portsnap and then install pkg on it... Oh wait, you can't.. pkg_install is broken, and 9.2 install disks don't have pkg in the BaseOS.... -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/
Andrew Berg
2014-Sep-02 02:16 UTC
Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
On 2014.09.01 20:51, Michelle Sullivan wrote:>>> And for the portsnap users? >>> >> In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users. >> > Sure about that?I'm sure of it. Your issue is with the tree itself, not the tool used to fetch it.> Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it, portsnap and then install > pkg on it... Oh wait, you can't.. pkg_install is broken, and 9.2 > install disks don't have pkg in the BaseOS....Use the ports tree tarball included, or fetch it (either during or after installation). It is not impossible to get an old version of the ports tree with only the 9.2 base system. I don't see how this is anything more than an inconvenience. Also, 9.3 is out and the 9.2 EOL is not far away. Not sure why you would be doing a new install with 9.2. _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Julian Elischer
2014-Sep-02 02:20 UTC
[HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
On 9/1/14, 6:39 PM, Sam Fourman Jr. wrote:>> And for the portsnap users? >> >> > In short, this change doesn't directly effect portsnap users. > > Portsnap is a tool that used to obtain a copy of the ports tree. > > Portsnap is only one way, another way to get a copy of the ports tree is by > using subversion and checking it out by using the svn command. > > pkg(8) is a package management tool, and to make use of most packages > having a copy of the ports tree is not required.But it is if you don't want the options that a pkg is built with. We need to do a lot of pkg munging for that reason, generating our own versions (which is ok, that's not a complaint, just a fact of life). I've warmed to pkg after using it a bit, and many of its initial shortcomings have been fixed. But one thing I'd like to request (a very minor thing).. Could the packing list have some newlines inserted into it to make it more humanly readable? Our old tools for auditing and controlling (old style) packages would print out that information. The new tools we need to write will need to do similar. We did an experiment at work here and wrote a small script that parsed it and then rewrote it back to the package with newlines added and pkg handled it just fine, so it should be a very minor thing to add some newlines when generating it in the first place. I don't think anything else needs to be changed.> >> >> -- >> Michelle Sullivan >> http://www.mhix.org/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org" >> > >
Matthew D. Fuller
2014-Sep-02 02:26 UTC
Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool
On Tue, Sep 02, 2014 at 03:51:31AM +0200 I heard the voice of Michelle Sullivan, and lo! it spake thus:> > Correct, take a 9.2 install disk, install it, portsnap and then > install pkg on it... Oh wait, you can't.. pkg_install is broken, > and 9.2 install disks don't have pkg in the BaseOS....So what? The pkg port uses _ITSELF_ to register. The "pkg" in the base system isn't pkg, it just a bootstrap to fetch the pkg pkg (which them uses itself to register too). If you're using the pkg _PORT_, it's not even involved in the first place. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream. _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"