Official FreeBSD Binary Packages now available for pkgng

[Matthew Seaman]

On 31/10/2013 04:11, Polytropon wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 20:59:54 -0700, David Newman wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/30/13 7:10 PM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>
>>> You can now either continue to use ports with portmaster/portupgrade, as
>>> before or switch to using binary packages only.
>>
>> Is this really an "or" or is it an "and"?
>>
>> For example, can a system use binary packages for most things, but use
>> portmaster or portupgrade on those ports where some special config
>> options are needed?
> 
> To extend the question, does the traditional method of using
> ports (without portmaster et al.) also seem to stop working?
> I'd like to emphasize that the constellation you mentioned
> isn't that uncommon. Take mplayer, for example; in order to
> make it work properly (i. e., all codecs plus mencoder), it's
> still required to compile it. My idea would be that I can
> use pkg to install everything that's needed as a runtime
> dependency, and only have a "make install" run for mplayer
> with a custom Makefile.local (or going through "make configure"
> for that matter). Localized ports (e. g. LibreOffice with
> german language) could also fall into the category of "still
> needs compiling"...
> 
> To be honest, there may be only a few things that need a
> manual "make install" run, but those could actually be
> essential. How does this interact with a system that uses
> pkg for all other needs? The old pkg_* tools worked well
> in such a constellation, even though it might be required
> to recompile some dependent ports (according to the non-
> default options that have been chosen), but in general,
> that was no big deal.
> 
> Will it start being a problem now?

No, mixing binary packages from pkg.freebsd.org with locally compiled
customized versions should work, so long as reasonable care is taken to
use a local ports tree of similar age to the ports tree used for
building the official packages.  You can do this with
portmaster(8)/portupgrade(8) or by setting up your own instance of
poudriere(8) or even just 'cd /usr/ports/foo/bar ; make all install'

Making this sort of mix of local customized and official packages work
really well is one of our (pkg(8) developers) top aims.  The integration
at the moment should be a bit better than using the old pkg_tools
packages in this way, but there are even more improvements yet to come.

There are also changes afoot which will have the effect of reducing the
number of options on individual packages but compensating by increasing
the number of packages to cover the different options settings.  This is
what sub-packages is all about: many options do little more than add a
few extra files to the pkg-plist: those can easily be hived off into a
separate sub-package.

	Cheers,

	Matthew

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 1036 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20131031/b3096651/attachment.sig>