[nycbug-talk] pkgng question

Glen Barber gjb at FreeBSD.org
Tue Mar 19 20:39:10 EDT 2013

On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:33:12AM -0400, Mark Saad wrote:
> > Hmm.  I use x11/slim with Intel i915kms no problem.  I'd really like to
> > see the "real" problem fixed in this case then.
> >
> I agree but its still a good question, can a package be blacklisted or
> held at a particular version . What about the case of an in house
> package
> like marks_custom_thing.tbz . Say I have a newer version in the repo
> but I do not want to upgrade to it on some servers.

In such a case, you would have a port that pkg(8) is not aware of.

What I do for my machines is create a misc/$(hostname -s) port, which
I then use as a meta-port for software I want installed on a particular

> > For KMS to work, iirc, you need WITH_NEW_XORG and WITH_KMS in make.conf;
> > do you have these?
> >
> Glen , I hate to say it but I am not using ports to build this stuff.
> I migrated to using all binary packages on one box. I am just pulling
> down what PC-BSD has up on their pkgng repo. I would guess they are
> using the with kms knobs to build their pkgs, since I am loading all
> of the kms modules.

No, because WITH_NEW_XORG is not default, and as far as I recall,
neither is WITH_KMS.

So, here's the problem with your x11/slim situation - an unfortunate
fact is that binary packages are not "one size fits all."  An excellent
example is lang/php5, where if you want the apache module included, you
need to build the port.

This is the primary reason I roll my own packages, using

This way, I can be certain all of the options I want are enabled, and
options I do not want or do not need are disabled.

Going back to your original question, my 'misc/$(hostname -s)' solution
was going to be my suggestion.  But, since boost-libs is a dependency of
other ports (not a dependent port), this is much more difficult.

To worsen your boost-libs situation, you will eventually run into
a situation where a 'pkg upgrade' will blow up because your
locally-patched version is not up-to-date.  I'm not saying this _can_
happen - I am saying this _will_ happen.  Unfortunately, I do not think
my solution will work for you.

It is never advisable to mix ports and packages.  This was the case with
pkg_install(1), and remains true with pkg(8).


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nycbug.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20130319/3ca1256b/attachment.bin>

More information about the talk mailing list