On 23/07/2012 10:31, Hartmann, O. wrote: > portmaster now is not recognizing anymore the format of the /var/db/pkg > folder - for those considered the knowledged no surprise, for me simply > the indication that portmaster usage isn't usable as usual.
You need to patch portmaster separately from installing pkgng. Once
that is done, it doesn't complain about missing stuff in /var/db/pkg
Note: use the latest version of the patch from git in preference to what
is included in pkgng distfiles: the patch gets updated following
portmaster's release schedule, not pkgng's.
Here:
https://github.com/pkgng/pkgng/raw/master/ports/patch-portmaster-pkgng
> Well, if I understand it right, pkg is considered to be for binary
> packages and does not make portmaster obsolete, if I'm inclined
> compiling my ports myself, am I right?
Correct.
> Well, I thought I read in here that pkg has now a much more
> sophisticated tracking of dependencies - usage of SQLite implies, that
> there is now a great opportunity of doing well in tracking problems and
> versioning (I might be wrong).
Again, correct. pkgng replaces grepping through a lot of files under
/var/db/pkg with doing some fairly simple SQL queries, and is in general
a much faster at that sort of thing.
> I tried to follow the chat on the list about pkgng, but for the rush I
> didn't figured out whether portmaster is considered obsolete - I saw
> patches for portupgrade flushing in, so my logic has been falsified by
> that implicitely ...
portmaster is definitely not obsolete. pkgng doesn't /do/ ports at all,
only packages.
Cheers,
Matthew
--
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
