Are you still using the old pkg_* packages?

[fonz]

I hope there is are no plans to ditch the ports system though

Right! Stop that!
This is far too silly!

More seriously, though: binary packages are still being built from the ports tree. The ports system really is absolutely positively not going anywhere. So don't worry about that.

 

[kpa]

And consider that there is no suitable replacement available for the ports(7) system, not even workable suggestions. There is pkgsrc for NetBSD but why would we want to use that with the huge amount of work put into the native ports tree? If there are problems with our ports tree it's better to try to fix them than do a big change to a largely unknown system that is probably not very compatible with the current ports system.

 

[Deleted member 13721]

I hope there is are no plans to ditch the ports system though

Right! Stop that!
This is far too silly!

More seriously, though: binary packages are still being built from the ports tree. The ports system really is absolutely positively not going anywhere. So don't worry about that.

The ports tree definitely needs to stay, (despite some people thinking it should be dumped) no question about that.

 

[fonz]

The ports tree definitely needs to stay, (despite some people thinking it should be dumped) no question about that.

Without the ports tree there would be very few binary packages either. But sometimes people don't understand that.

 

[free-and-bsd]

"No. I'm creating my own PKGNG packages."

I do the above because I have three systems installed. So, one gets updated using portmaster (and that implies using pkgng as well), then others can use packages created on the 1st first one, for they're identical systems/architectures.

 

[eonil]

I really want to try PKGNG, but I haven't succeeded to make it work. It seems the remote repository doesn't exist. How can I make it work? (FreeBSD 9.2, installed pkg 1.2.5 using the ports tree).

 

[Chris_H]

No. I'm using the ports tree. I almost never have a need, or reason to consider making/using packages.

How do I take the poll? Or did I just do it?

Best wishes.

--Chris

 

[Beastie]

I really want to try PKGNG, but I haven't succeeded to make it work. It seems the remote repository doesn't exist. How can I make it work? (FreeBSD 9.2, installed pkg 1.2.5 using the ports tree).

Create a new thread, giving ample details about what you are doing and what error (word for word) you are getting, so that we may help you. Also don't forget to post your PKG configuration file(s).

 

[Beastie]

How do I take the poll? Or did I just do it?

For some reason @Ime@ set a time limit for the poll.

Poll ended at 25 Dec 2013 12:19

 

[Chris_H]

@Beastie. Ahh... Bummer. Thanks for the info.

--Chris

 

[eonil]

Re:

I really want to try PKGNG, but I haven't succeeded to make it work. It seems the remote repository doesn't exist. How can I make it work? (FreeBSD 9.2, installed pkg 1.2.5 using the ports tree).

Create a new thread, giving ample details about what you are doing and what error (word for word) you are getting, so that we may help you.
Also don't forget to post your PKG configuration file(s).

OK. And I prepared a fresh new FreeBSD box, and it's working well now. Maybe there were some misconfigurations. Thanks and sorry.

 

[throAU]

I'm not sure if I voted, but I'm currently running old pkg tools on my production boxes (8.3) and will switch to PKGNG when I upgrade them to 10.1 (VMs, so I'll rebuild side by side and then migrate service).

 

[kpedersen]

I generally use the -RELEASE packages until they become outdated compared to ports, then I move to ports but compile them against my current package versions (something that cannot be done with the -STABLE packages).

Admittedly I do not really like PKGNG. It works a lot more like a "repository" and as such has more overhead than a simple FTP server. I can also not fathom why the full PKGNG tools are not installed in base. It either means I need a few extra packages as well as the disk1 ISO or it means I am tied to the Internet when setting up a new server.

 

[micski]

I have a very nice FreeBSD 9.2 running smooth as a graphical desktop and all. The system recommended the change to the new packaging system. I was therefore under the impression, that the change to the new packaging system would be a fairly quick and easy change. I was wrong. The more, I got into the change, the more and more non reversable changes and problems came up - and eventually left my system faulty and not able to use the ports tree anymore.

Question 1: Can I revert the change? Get back to the good, old make files and ports tree?

Question 2: If not, is there any guides out there, who simply goes through this change - or do I have to wipe the harddisk and begin all over?

Question 3: If I have to start all over, and the packaging system is damaged for good, is there a manual way to install my Google Chrome browser again?

 

[kpa]

You can start over with ports and packages without wiping everything on the disk. Delete everything under /usr/local and /var/db/pkg and you're essentially in a clean state with just the base system installed but no packages.

 

[micski]

You can start over with ports and packages without wiping everything on the disk. Delete everything under /usr/local and /var/db/pkg and you're essentially in a clean state with just the base system installed but no packages.

Thanks for your advice. However, if I delete /usr/local I might end with more problems. An example is bash.

 

[Chris_H]

You can start over with ports and packages without wiping everything on the disk. Delete everything under /usr/local and /var/db/pkg and you're essentially in a clean state with just the base system installed but no packages.

Thanks for your advice. However, if I delete /usr/local I might end with more problems. An example is bash.

See portsnap(8), for a quick, and easy way to retrieve a fresh new ports tree. It's also quite possible with svn(1). The FreeBSD handbook (links at top of page) covers some of the more interesting aspects of using it.

--Chris

 

[wblock@]

I have a very nice FreeBSD 9.2 running smooth as a graphical desktop and all. The system recommended the change to the new packaging system. I was therefore under the impression, that the change to the new packaging system would be a fairly quick and easy change. I was wrong. The more, I got into the change, the more and more non reversable changes and problems came up - and eventually left my system faulty and not able to use the ports tree anymore.

"pkgng" (really, just pkg(8)) is just a new database. Many people think it means you have to use binary packages, but that's not true. This has been poorly explained.

Question 1: Can I revert the change? Get back to the good, old make files and ports tree?

1. portmaster --list-origins > ~/installed-port-list
2. Update the ports tree
3. portmaster -ty --clean-distfiles
4. portmaster -Faf
5. pkg delete -afy
6. rm -rf /usr/local/lib/compat/pkg
7. Back up any files in /usr/local you wish to save,
   such as configuration files in /usr/local/etc
8. Manually check /usr/local and /var/db/pkg
   to make sure that they are really empty
9. Install ports-mgmt/pkg and then ports-mgmt/portmaster
   Remove both from ~/installed-port-list
10. portmaster --no-confirm `cat ~/installed-port-list`

 

[SirDice]

However, if I delete /usr/local I might end with more problems.

Certainly don't forget to make backups from any configuration files you may have in /usr/local/etc/.

An example is bash.

That's easy to prevent of course. Make sure yours and root's shell are set to csh(1) or tcsh(1). A bigger obstacle might be the absence of sudo(8) if you do things remotely. So make sure your user account is a member of the wheel group and you have access to root's password.

 

[jrodrigu]

You folks really have me lost on this one. What difference does it make which package version you are using? You can't build anything on releases preceding version 10.

In fact, the system (9) preventing me from using the pkg_ versions months ago and forced me to upgrade. How is these folks are still using pkg_*?

 

[src386]

Hello,
I'm using pkgng, but building my own packages from the ports.
I cannot use the binary packages from repositories, because there are always missing components. For example prosody and postfix do not support mysql backend.
Sometimes it's a dependence version issue. If I install ruby21 then gem-bundler, it requires ruby19 (ruby21 is not recognized as a correct dependence).
I understand binary packages need to be compatible with ports, but it's problematic.
It should be more modular, for example "postfix-mysql", like aptitude.

 

[kpa]

Hello,
I'm using pkgng, but building my own packages from the ports.
I cannot use the binary packages from repositories, because there are always missing components. For example prosody and postfix do not support mysql backend.
Sometimes it's a dependence version issue. If I install ruby21 then gem-bundler, it requires ruby19 (ruby21 is not recognized as a correct dependence).
I understand binary packages need to be compatible with ports, but it's problematic.
It should be more modular, for example "postfix-mysql", like aptitude.

Next version of ports-mgmt/pkg should improve things considerably. It will include a dependency solver that can process REQUIRES/PROVIDES directives from package metadata. This will enable a much more fine grained dependency checking and the current situation where dependencies are "hard coded" shouldn't be such a problem anymore.

 

[src386]

Hello,
I'm using pkgng, but building my own packages from the ports.
I cannot use the binary packages from repositories, because there are always missing components. For example prosody and postfix do not support mysql backend.
Sometimes it's a dependence version issue. If I install ruby21 then gem-bundler, it requires ruby19 (ruby21 is not recognized as a correct dependence).
I understand binary packages need to be compatible with ports, but it's problematic.
It should be more modular, for example "postfix-mysql", like aptitude.

Next version of ports-mgmt/pkg should improve things considerably. It will include a dependency solver that can process REQUIRES/PROVIDES directives from package metadata. This will enable a much more fine grained dependency checking and the current situation where dependencies are "hard coded" shouldn't be such a problem anymore.

Thank you @kpa.
I think this is one of the greatest improvement in FreeBSD.
My Atom 1,6GHz monocore server can't wait for this :e

 

[Ajax]

Recently pkg couldn't update/install due to checksum errors. Thinking about fallback to ports/pkg_add.

 

[silicium]

pkg did not care about my ports built with custom options, and wanted to reinstall/overwrite them with default packages from repository. Had to comment out the relevant lines in the source of pkg.