On Wednesday 05 September 2007 17:42:55 Michael C. Cambria wrote:
> I need to set up a system that can only use packages. I've always used
> ports, so I'm not exactly sure if I'm doing things properly.
> Should I (do I need to) use portsnap to populate /usr/ports? Unless I
> really need something that doesn't have a pkg available, I will not be
> using ports.
> I've always used portupgrade, and plan to do so, using -PP (only
> packages) for this setup. My first question is should I?
It needs the ports tree to know which packages to *upgrade*. I know of no
ports management system that is able to use only binary and no ports tree. If
you need to save space, consider mounting /usr/ports via nfs.
Now, whether you should use portupgrade...I'm not very positive about it and
currently writing my own tools to do just that. I found that portupgrade uses
a lot of things it shouldn't need to when in -PP mode (most notably running
make all-depends-list before installing a new port and unpacking the entire
package just to read it's +CONTENTS file for dependencies).
With an ever growing ports tree and the recent Xorg split, adding ~200 new
packages to the basic install, I find it to become very slow.
If you're going to be using packages you build yourself on a build machine,
like I'm doing, you're even in for a bigger surprise, because they are built
using the 'packages' target. This target creates plist, which then becomes
the packages' +CONTENTS file, on many occasions different from what has been
installed on your build machine.
You could manage with pkg_add/pkg_delete, but then:
1) *You* have to find out which packages are eligible for upgrading
2) Upgrading a package will mean delete the old version before installing the
3) *You* will have to backup libraries manually.
(Yes, I realize portupgrade does this)
People using reply to all on lists, must think I need 2 copies.
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"