Re: Convert all packages to ports
On Friday 02 July 2010, Chris Stankevitz wrote: --- On Thu, 7/1/10, Chris Stankevitz chrisstankev...@yahoo.com wrote: Q: Is there a simple way to replace each package with the locally compiled port? portmaster -f -a Ideally the procedure will not ask me any questions Be prepared to answer hundreds of options questions. To take the default option you must press TAB, ENTER to each query. Have fun! Would portmaster -Gfa help ? From the man page: -G prevents the recursive 'make config' (overrides --force-config) -- Mike Clarke ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Convert all packages to ports
In freebsd-questions Digest, Vol 317, Issue 9, Message: 26 On Thu, 01 Jul 2010 18:52:54 -0400 Glen Barber glen.j.bar...@gmail.com wrote: On 7/1/10 5:58 PM, Chris Stankevitz wrote: --- On Thu, 7/1/10, Glen Barberglen.j.bar...@gmail.com wrote: Once ports or packages are installed, there is no differentiation to the system. Interesting. If this is true, then I can just start upgrading my 'pkg_add' installed packages using ports and eventually they will all be converted over to 'make'. The only difference is that a package is a port built with its default options. Sometimes that might not be suitable and you'll want to make it with other options. One way to tell if something was installed by making a port is that /var/db/ports will contain a directory for that port with the file 'options', created or updated by 'make config'. However, your comment seems to be in disagreement with online warnings of do not mix 'pkg_add' packages with 'make' ports. portmaster will deinstall and reinstall (and I believe rollback if something blows up). You are correct - don't mix ports and packages. I don't know where these 'do not mix ports and packages' warnings come from, but I suspect it's from people who think that they're different :) If you like to run portsnap followed by portupgrade or portmaster every morning before breakfast, then yes, you might have to wait a day or two now and again, for the package build systems to catch up with a freshly upgraded port. Except when building a new set of release packages for all architectures - like soon with 8.1-RELEASE a'coming - there's not usually much delay in package building these days. And it's not true that packages are only built for releases; any port that doesn't have (eg) distribution restrictions on binary packages will find its way into the queue on the package build systems, and update the Latest/ package, after every update. My original question's intention was to prevent me from having a system where some packages were installed with 'pkg_add' while others were installed with 'make'. portmaster is probably the easiest road to get you there. Sure, or portupgrade. I think both have -P switches to use packages rather than make from source where the matching package is available, which is pretty handy on less than awesome boxes for Big Things like Xorg, KDE and the like .. not to mention Java .. cheers, Ian ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Convert all packages to ports
Please let me add this: On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 03:37:14 +1000 (EST), Ian Smith smi...@nimnet.asn.au wrote: The only difference is that a package is a port built with its default options. Sometimes that might not be suitable and you'll want to make it with other options. One way to tell if something was installed by making a port is that /var/db/ports will contain a directory for that port with the file 'options', created or updated by 'make config'. A package is a precompiled port - as you said correctly, using the default options for that port. Nothing more or less. It *is* that simple. :-) I don't know where these 'do not mix ports and packages' warnings come from, but I suspect it's from people who think that they're different :) I think it may have come from PC-BSD, taking into mind their PBI system, like do not mix PBI with ports or packages. :-) And it's not true that packages are only built for releases; any port that doesn't have (eg) distribution restrictions on binary packages will find its way into the queue on the package build systems, and update the Latest/ package, after every update. Correct again. Packages are updated regularly (with the corresponding port's default options), but it may (!) be interesting to incorporate daily changes of the ports tree and keep the own installed software up-to-date, in an absolutely bleeding-edge state. Personally, there are only few ports that I really want or need to install via ports. Specific optimization, e. g. due to limited hardware resources, as well as for example codecs to include (I'm talking about mencoder / mplayer here), or the pure absence of precompiled packages (like OpenOffice) requires this. My original question's intention was to prevent me from having a system where some packages were installed with 'pkg_add' while others were installed with 'make'. portmaster is probably the easiest road to get you there. Sure, or portupgrade. The portupgrade set of tools also included pkgdb. If you plan to mix several methods of installing (e. g. portinstall, make install, pkg_add -r), use # pkgdb -aF before and after you installed (or removed) something. This will keep portupgrade's database up to date, so it takes into mind when you *didn't* use it to install (or remove) something. I think both have -P switches to use packages rather than make from source where the matching package is available, which is pretty handy on less than awesome boxes for Big Things like Xorg, KDE and the like .. not to mention Java .. Or OpenOffice, where this won't work. :-) But you're correct: For portinstall / portupgrade, -P (use package) and -PP (use packages only) can be used, and will also affect how to deal with dependencies. Finally, portinstall / portupgrade allow you to create a package from a port you've just installed, see -p in the manual. -- Polytropon Magdeburg, Germany Happy FreeBSD user since 4.0 Andra moi ennepe, Mousa, ... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Convert all packages to ports
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/07/2010 18:57:11, Polytropon wrote: I don't know where these 'do not mix ports and packages' warnings come from, but I suspect it's from people who think that they're different :) I think it may have come from PC-BSD, taking into mind their PBI system, like do not mix PBI with ports or packages. :-) Mostly, I believe, this comes from what tends to happen if you try and install downloaded packages onto a machine that has previously been maintained by building ports. Especially when the downloaded package is a big lump (hence very attractive to download something precompiled) with lots of dependencies (Danger, Will Robinson!). Chances are one or more of the packages already installed are dependencies of the big lump. Not only that: they are quite likely to be more recent versions than what the big lump was compiled against. This will result in alarm and despondency amongst those less well versed in the subtle art of beating the ports system into submission. The really unlucky people will find that they have dependency shlibs with a more recent ABI version than what the big lump was compiled against. In this case, there's nothing for it but to grit the teeth; gird up the loins; make plenty of hot, strong, black coffee and start compiling. Cheers, Matthew - -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkwuLYUACgkQ8Mjk52CukIxMBgCfWTmcMv9/f4th5C2rFY18KKDk oNQAnApdwysxmPO8SYgePN2+POJd+Zz/ =cvqU -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Convert all packages to ports
Hello, I setup my system using packages. I have 675 packages installed and 0 ports installed. Q: Is there a simple way to replace each package with the locally compiled port? Ideally the procedure will not ask me any questions and will leave me with 0 installed packages and 675 installed ports. Thank you, Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Convert all packages to ports
Hi, Chris On 7/1/10 5:23 PM, Chris Stankevitz wrote: Hello, I setup my system using packages. I have 675 packages installed and 0 ports installed. Q: Is there a simple way to replace each package with the locally compiled port? Ideally the procedure will not ask me any questions and will leave me with 0 installed packages and 675 installed ports. You might have a look at ports-mgmt/portmaster. It will prompt you for configuration settings before proceeding with building your ports. Regards, -- Glen Barber ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Convert all packages to ports
On 7/1/10 5:31 PM, Glen Barber wrote: Hi, Chris On 7/1/10 5:23 PM, Chris Stankevitz wrote: Hello, I setup my system using packages. I have 675 packages installed and 0 ports installed. Q: Is there a simple way to replace each package with the locally compiled port? Ideally the procedure will not ask me any questions and will leave me with 0 installed packages and 675 installed ports. You might have a look at ports-mgmt/portmaster. It will prompt you for configuration settings before proceeding with building your ports. I just want to add, that this is necessary when upgrading your existing software. Once ports or packages are installed, there is no differentiation to the system. The difference is that packages (installed via pkg_add(1)) are built once, when a new FreeBSD -RELEASE is out. Regards, -- Glen Barber ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Convert all packages to ports
--- On Thu, 7/1/10, Glen Barber glen.j.bar...@gmail.com wrote: Once ports or packages are installed, there is no differentiation to the system. Interesting. If this is true, then I can just start upgrading my 'pkg_add' installed packages using ports and eventually they will all be converted over to 'make'. However, your comment seems to be in disagreement with online warnings of do not mix 'pkg_add' packages with 'make' ports. My original question's intention was to prevent me from having a system where some packages were installed with 'pkg_add' while others were installed with 'make'. Thank you, Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Convert all packages to ports
On 7/1/10 5:58 PM, Chris Stankevitz wrote: --- On Thu, 7/1/10, Glen Barberglen.j.bar...@gmail.com wrote: Once ports or packages are installed, there is no differentiation to the system. Interesting. If this is true, then I can just start upgrading my 'pkg_add' installed packages using ports and eventually they will all be converted over to 'make'. However, your comment seems to be in disagreement with online warnings of do not mix 'pkg_add' packages with 'make' ports. portmaster will deinstall and reinstall (and I believe rollback if something blows up). You are correct - don't mix ports and packages. My original question's intention was to prevent me from having a system where some packages were installed with 'pkg_add' while others were installed with 'make'. portmaster is probably the easiest road to get you there. Regards, -- Glen Barber ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Convert all packages to ports
--- On Thu, 7/1/10, Chris Stankevitz chrisstankev...@yahoo.com wrote: Q: Is there a simple way to replace each package with the locally compiled port? portmaster -f -a Ideally the procedure will not ask me any questions Be prepared to answer hundreds of options questions. To take the default option you must press TAB, ENTER to each query. Have fun! Chris TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Convert all packages to ports
On 7/1/10 7:27 PM, Chris Stankevitz wrote: --- On Thu, 7/1/10, Chris Stankevitzchrisstankev...@yahoo.com wrote: Q: Is there a simple way to replace each package with the locally compiled port? portmaster -f -a Ideally the procedure will not ask me any questions Be prepared to answer hundreds of options questions. To take the default option you must press TAB, ENTER to each query. Have fun! Chris TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER You can add BATCH=yes in /etc/make.conf, though I don't recall off hand if portmaster looks there - I suspect it does. Ideally sounds like an option to me. [tab][enter] Regards, -- Glen Barber ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Convert all packages to ports
Chris == Chris Stankevitz chrisstankev...@yahoo.com writes: Chris Be prepared to answer hundreds of options questions. To take the default option you must press TAB, ENTER to each query. Have fun! Chris Chris Chris TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, Chris ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, Chris ENTER, TAB, ENTER, TAB, ENTER Eh? I just hit the letter O for OK. It's amazing how underdocumented and non-intuitive that interface is. :) -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 mer...@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Convert all packages to ports
--- On Thu, 7/1/10, Randal L. Schwartz mer...@stonehenge.com wrote: Chris Be prepared to answer hundreds of options questions. To take the default option you must press TAB, ENTER to each query. Have fun! I just hit the letter O for OK. Randal, Thank you, pressing O is indeed easier than TAB, ENTER. Unfortunately, I already pressed TAB, ENTER about a hundred times. The build is now going. Hopefully any extra TAB, ENTER sequences I made will be forgotten by portmaster and not used to answer any non-options related questions. Chris ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Convert all packages to ports
Chris == Chris Stankevitz chrisstankev...@yahoo.com writes: Chris Thank you, pressing O is indeed easier than TAB, ENTER. Chris Unfortunately, I already pressed TAB, ENTER about a hundred Chris times. The build is now going. Hopefully any extra TAB, ENTER Chris sequences I made will be forgotten by portmaster and not used to Chris answer any non-options related questions. You've probably answered the defaults all the way up to 2012. Hope you enjoy FreeBSD 8.2's defaults. :) -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 mer...@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Convert all packages to ports
Chris Stankevitz wrote: --- On Thu, 7/1/10, Glen Barber glen.j.bar...@gmail.com wrote: Once ports or packages are installed, there is no differentiation to the system. Interesting. If this is true, then I can just start upgrading my 'pkg_add' installed packages using ports and eventually they will all be converted over to 'make'. However, your comment seems to be in disagreement with online warnings of do not mix 'pkg_add' packages with 'make' ports. The ports tree will always be ahead (a bit) of the packages, since the packages take time to build and push out to the FTP servers. You end up with some problems because the system expects version $n.123 of somepackage but the installed somepackage is $n.121, and vice-versa problems can happen as well. They are fairly minor to fix if you've done it much, but can be responsible for a heckuva lot of list traffic. Kevin Kinsey ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Convert all packages to ports
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 14:58:07 -0700 (PDT) Chris Stankevitz chrisstankev...@yahoo.com wrote: --- On Thu, 7/1/10, Glen Barber glen.j.bar...@gmail.com wrote: However, your comment seems to be in disagreement with online warnings of do not mix 'pkg_add' packages with 'make' ports. My original question's intention was to prevent me from having a system where some packages were installed with 'pkg_add' while others were installed with 'make'. There's not a problem with mixing them per se - an installed package is the same whether it created from a port or a package file. Problems arise because the release packages where built against a snapshot of the ports tree made well before the release, so the dependencies can be very different from the current tree. Problems arise when people try to do piecemeal updates from ports, or try to use pkg_add after bringing the system up to date. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
