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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:29 UTC