Re: pkg 2 ng conversion

2014-06-08 Thread Warren Block
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

Re: pkg 2 ng conversion

2014-06-08 Thread Matthew Seaman
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

Re: pkg 2 ng conversion

2014-06-08 Thread Kevin Oberman
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 repla

Re: pkg 2 ng conversion

2014-06-08 Thread A.J. 'Fonz' van Werven
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

Re: pkg 2 ng conversion

2014-06-08 Thread Montgomery-Smith, Stephen
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 >> downloa

Re: pkg 2 ng conversion

2014-06-08 Thread Michael Gmelin
> 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

Re: pkg 2 ng conversion

2014-06-08 Thread Jim Pazarena
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

Re: pkg 2 ng conversion

2014-06-08 Thread Warren Block
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?

Re: pkg 2 ng conversion

2014-06-08 Thread Jim Pazarena
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 documenta

Re: pkg 2 ng conversion

2014-05-28 Thread Jim Ohlstein
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.

Re: pkg 2 ng conversion

2014-05-28 Thread Matthew Seaman
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.