Re: pkg 2 ng conversion
On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Jim Pazarena wrote: On 2014-06-08 10:55 AM, Warren Block wrote: On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Jim Pazarena wrote: No. pkg is just a package manager. It does not replace ports, it just handles packages. Like the old package manager, binary packages can be downloaded and installed rather than ports, but the choice is yours. Ahh.. therein lies the confusion. I have been compiling ports for many years. However the compilations began nagging about converting pkg2ng. So I investigated, and set the appropriate "WITH_PKGNG=yes" and ran pkg2ng. But I never use packages. I always compile from ports. So the warning appearing in each and every compile was & is very misleading. Unless I am *still* confused !! The package database tracks what is installed, whether it was built from a port or downloaded as a binary package. The old package database is going away, and it's time to switch. That's what pkg2ng does, reads the old installed packages database and writes the new format. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkg 2 ng conversion
On 08/06/2014 20:59, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen wrote: > Why did the change the database structure? The old way had a separate > directory for each port/package built. The new way is to use a modern > relational database. So one advantage is the the new pkg database is > much faster. Maybe there are other advantages too. Yes, absolutely. Speed is one very big reason for switching to sqlite. There are others - reliability. It was depressingly easy to break the old style /var/db/pkg setup. Especially in tracking reverse dependencies: ie. asking what depends on this package? - consistency. The database schema simply makes it impossible to have duplicate versions of the same package in the pkgdb, something that was formerly a frequent problem. - It's a RDBMS with the power of SQL to pull out pretty much whatever information you could want about the packages you have installed. SQL queries are much easier to write than grepping through /var/db/pkg and passing the results through some complicated post-processing pipeline to filter out the useful stuff. Although one word of caution: we do tend to change the database schema quite frequently, and occasionally in quite radical ways. So, by all means feel free to fire up 'pkg shell' and SQL away; just don't make that an essential or even an important part of anything critical to your livelihood. Instead, use the tools like 'pkg query' or 'pkg info' where we aim to provide a consistent API. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: pkg 2 ng conversion
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Montgomery-Smith, Stephen < step...@missouri.edu> wrote: > On 06/08/2014 02:25 PM, Jim Pazarena wrote: > > On 2014-06-08 10:55 AM, Warren Block wrote: > >> On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Jim Pazarena wrote: > >> > >> > >> No. pkg is just a package manager. It does not replace ports, it just > >> handles packages. Like the old package manager, binary packages can be > >> downloaded and installed rather than ports, but the choice is yours. > > > > Ahh.. therein lies the confusion. I have been compiling ports for many > > years. However the compilations began nagging about converting pkg2ng. > > So I investigated, and set the appropriate "WITH_PKGNG=yes" and ran > > pkg2ng. But I never use packages. I always compile from ports. > > > > So the warning appearing in each and every compile was & is very > > misleading. Unless I am *still* confused !! > > I still think you are confused. pkg manages the database that stores > which ports/packages are installed on your system. Whether that > particular piece of software came from building it using a port, or from > downloading a binary package is immaterial. > > I think part of the confusion comes from the double use of the words > package and/or port. When you have, say, xorg-7.7 installed on your > system, do you say you have the port xorg installed, or the package xorg > installed? Once it is installed it doesn't matter where it came from - > port or package. For whatever reason, people tend to call it a package > once it is installed, even if it came from a port. > > For example, when you write "pkg info" in the new system, or "pkg_info" > in the old system, it reads the database to tell you the list of > packages/ports installed. Now "pkg_info" and "pkg" assume a very > different structure for the database. That is why, if you have > installed any ports or packages using the old system, you have to run > pkg2ng. It converts the database from one form to the other. And that > is why if you are using FreeBSD-9 or an older system, you have to add > "WITH_PKGNG=yes" to make.conf, so that when more ports/packages are > installed, it will update the new database and not the old. > > Why did the change the database structure? The old way had a separate > directory for each port/package built. The new way is to use a modern > relational database. So one advantage is the the new pkg database is > much faster. Maybe there are other advantages too. > > There are many advantages and speed is a minor one. The one that I see as most significant is that the database schema will not allow any port or package to be installed if there is a file that has the same path as an installed one. This was actually a fairly common problem. It was often noticed, perhaps fairly quickly, but often not, and a CONFLICTS was added to the port, but until them, the second port simply overwrote the older file. This seemed to happen most frequently with documentation files. The new database has blocks the installation of the new port until the conflict is resolved. It does not prevent a port from being committed with a conflict, but the conflict will be noted the first time someone tries to install the ports and will them be fixed in one of several ways. -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkg 2 ng conversion
Jim Pazarena wrote: > this process is a little confusing. > do I still need to run "portsnap fetch" ? PKGNG is a packaging system, not a building system. If you need a ports tree (usually for BUILDING ports/packages from source, although there are other reasons occasionally), then yes, you need to do a # portsnap fetch extract or alternatively obtain a ports tree through Git or Subversion. If you don't need a ports tree (for example because you'll only be installing binary packages from a repository and don't need a ports tree for other reasons), there's no need to use Portsnap either. AvW -- I'm not completely useless, I can be used as a bad example. pgpTX5WduDnWU.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: pkg 2 ng conversion
On 06/08/2014 02:25 PM, Jim Pazarena wrote: > On 2014-06-08 10:55 AM, Warren Block wrote: >> On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Jim Pazarena wrote: >> >> >> No. pkg is just a package manager. It does not replace ports, it just >> handles packages. Like the old package manager, binary packages can be >> downloaded and installed rather than ports, but the choice is yours. > > Ahh.. therein lies the confusion. I have been compiling ports for many > years. However the compilations began nagging about converting pkg2ng. > So I investigated, and set the appropriate "WITH_PKGNG=yes" and ran > pkg2ng. But I never use packages. I always compile from ports. > > So the warning appearing in each and every compile was & is very > misleading. Unless I am *still* confused !! I still think you are confused. pkg manages the database that stores which ports/packages are installed on your system. Whether that particular piece of software came from building it using a port, or from downloading a binary package is immaterial. I think part of the confusion comes from the double use of the words package and/or port. When you have, say, xorg-7.7 installed on your system, do you say you have the port xorg installed, or the package xorg installed? Once it is installed it doesn't matter where it came from - port or package. For whatever reason, people tend to call it a package once it is installed, even if it came from a port. For example, when you write "pkg info" in the new system, or "pkg_info" in the old system, it reads the database to tell you the list of packages/ports installed. Now "pkg_info" and "pkg" assume a very different structure for the database. That is why, if you have installed any ports or packages using the old system, you have to run pkg2ng. It converts the database from one form to the other. And that is why if you are using FreeBSD-9 or an older system, you have to add "WITH_PKGNG=yes" to make.conf, so that when more ports/packages are installed, it will update the new database and not the old. Why did the change the database structure? The old way had a separate directory for each port/package built. The new way is to use a modern relational database. So one advantage is the the new pkg database is much faster. Maybe there are other advantages too. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkg 2 ng conversion
> On 08 Jun 2014, at 21:25, Jim Pazarena wrote: > >> On 2014-06-08 10:55 AM, Warren Block wrote: >> On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Jim Pazarena wrote: >> >> >> No. pkg is just a package manager. It does not replace ports, it just >> handles packages. Like the old package manager, binary packages can be >> downloaded and installed rather than ports, but the choice is yours. > > Ahh.. therein lies the confusion. I have been compiling ports for many > years. However the compilations began nagging about converting pkg2ng. > So I investigated, and set the appropriate "WITH_PKGNG=yes" and ran > pkg2ng. But I never use packages. I always compile from ports. > > So the warning appearing in each and every compile was & is very > misleading. Unless I am *still* confused !! Not really. If you build from ports that results in a binary package that is installed using the package manager. Old pkg_* tools won't be supported after September 1st, so this directly affects you, even if you build all ports yourself. > ___ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkg 2 ng conversion
On 2014-06-08 10:55 AM, Warren Block wrote: On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Jim Pazarena wrote: No. pkg is just a package manager. It does not replace ports, it just handles packages. Like the old package manager, binary packages can be downloaded and installed rather than ports, but the choice is yours. Ahh.. therein lies the confusion. I have been compiling ports for many years. However the compilations began nagging about converting pkg2ng. So I investigated, and set the appropriate "WITH_PKGNG=yes" and ran pkg2ng. But I never use packages. I always compile from ports. So the warning appearing in each and every compile was & is very misleading. Unless I am *still* confused !! ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkg 2 ng conversion
On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Jim Pazarena wrote: On 2014-05-28 11:30 AM, Jim Ohlstein wrote: Hello, On 5/28/14, 2:13 PM, Jim Pazarena wrote: On a new/fresh install, V10, should a person immediately place "WITH_PKGNG=yes" in the make.conf ? And then is it not required to run pkg2ng ? Or is it implied? It seems not, but I cannot find documentation in this respect. In my experience it is unnecessary to add "WITH_PKGNG=yes" in a fresh FreeBSD 10 box, and it is certainly not necessary to run pkg2ng since there are no installed packages. The pkg_* tools are not included in FreeBSD 10 and the pkg(ng) system is the default. this process is a little confusing. do I still need to run "portsnap fetch" ? If you build from ports and wish to continue using them, then yes, continue to use portsnap or svn to update the ports tree. Or does this need to be replaced with some other ng style update? No. pkg is just a package manager. It does not replace ports, it just handles packages. Like the old package manager, binary packages can be downloaded and installed rather than ports, but the choice is yours. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkg 2 ng conversion
On 2014-05-28 11:30 AM, Jim Ohlstein wrote: Hello, On 5/28/14, 2:13 PM, Jim Pazarena wrote: On a new/fresh install, V10, should a person immediately place "WITH_PKGNG=yes" in the make.conf ? And then is it not required to run pkg2ng ? Or is it implied? It seems not, but I cannot find documentation in this respect. In my experience it is unnecessary to add "WITH_PKGNG=yes" in a fresh FreeBSD 10 box, and it is certainly not necessary to run pkg2ng since there are no installed packages. The pkg_* tools are not included in FreeBSD 10 and the pkg(ng) system is the default. this process is a little confusing. do I still need to run "portsnap fetch" ? Or does this need to be replaced with some other ng style update? ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkg 2 ng conversion
Hello, On 5/28/14, 2:13 PM, Jim Pazarena wrote: I have several servers, some 9.1, 9.2, 10.0 all nagging about the deprecated package system. So I've bitten the bullet and am converting to the new pkg system. The notes for conversion indicate you must add "WITH_PKGNG=yes" to make.conf. Also done. On a new/fresh install, V10, should a person immediately place "WITH_PKGNG=yes" in the make.conf ? And then is it not required to run pkg2ng ? Or is it implied? It seems not, but I cannot find documentation in this respect. In my experience it is unnecessary to add "WITH_PKGNG=yes" in a fresh FreeBSD 10 box, and it is certainly not necessary to run pkg2ng since there are no installed packages. The pkg_* tools are not included in FreeBSD 10 and the pkg(ng) system is the default. -- Jim Ohlstein "Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." - Mark Twain ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: pkg 2 ng conversion
On 28/05/2014 19:13, Jim Pazarena wrote: > On a new/fresh install, V10, should a person immediately place > "WITH_PKGNG=yes" in the make.conf ? And then is it not required > to run pkg2ng ? Or is it implied? It seems not, but I cannot find > documentation in this respect. It's not necessary on 10.x -- you get that setting by default. Also, if you've never touched pkg_tools on a new install, you don't need to run pkg2ng[*]. Just start by installing pkg(8) and then us it to install whatever else you want installed. Cheers, Matthew [*] Although in this case, it will do no harm. Also you might like the periodic.conf update you can get by running 'pkg2ng -p' -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
