# pkgng refuses to install Skype



## achix (Jun 17, 2013)

Hello,

On my system, I have the NVIDIA GPU GeForce GTS 450 card therefore I had to install the latest nVidia driver nvidia-driver-310.44_1, via `pkg install nvidia-driver-310.44_1`. I am using the pcbsd PC-BSD PKGNG repository. Files included in said package, among others, are /compat/linux/usr/lib/libGL.so.1 and /compat/linux/usr/lib/libGL.so.310.44.

Now when I try to install Skype via `pkg install skype-2.1.0.81_1,1`, I get:

```
Checking integrity...pkg: WARNING: locally installed nvidia-driver-310.44_1 conflicts on /compat/linux/usr/lib/libGL.so.1 with:
        - linux-dri-7.4_1
```

So, it seems that this file /compat/linux/usr/lib/libGL.so.1 is already owned by nvidia-driver-310.44_1 and won't let Skype install. I think there might be a way to re-install the nvidia-driver-310.44_1 (obviously from ports) without Linux support, or try to install Skype from ports. Any hints?


----------



## achix (Jun 17, 2013)

Update*:* finally resorted to ports*:* /usr/ports/net-im/skype-devel in order to click on "libGL provided by NVidia binary drivers", and make the install from the there. All went fine. It is just that the two make options in the two ports:

LINUX "Linux compatibility support" in /usr/ports/x11/nvidia-driver
NVIDIA_GL "libGL provided by NVidia binary drivers"
When used to build the packages repository, they should be mutually compatible: either disable both or enable both. In the Skype port, if disabled it will go on and install linux-dri.


----------



## achix (Jun 17, 2013)

Unfortunately, it seems this was too good to be true. When trying to dry-run a `pkg upgrade` I get*:*

```
root@smadev:~# pkg upgrade -n
The following packages will be upgraded:

        Installing cuse4bsd-kmod: 0.1.27
        Installing linux-dri: 7.4_1
        Installing linux-f10-libv4l: 0.6.2
        Installing webcamd: 3.9.0.5
        Reinstalling skype-devel-2.2.0.35_1

The installation will require 4 MB more space

0 B to be downloaded
```
The version of Skype I have is exactly the same as the one proposed for upgrade by pkgng*:*

```
root@smadev:~# pkg info -x skype
skype-devel-2.2.0.35_1         P2P VoIP software, development version
root@smadev:~#
```

Anyone has any clue as to why that could be? The above `pkg upgrade` will fail for the very same reasons explained in #1,#2 above.


----------



## SirDice (Jun 17, 2013)

achix said:
			
		

> It is just that the two make options in the two ports:
> 
> LINUX "Linux compatibility support" in /usr/ports/x11/nvidia-driver
> NVIDIA_GL "libGL provided by NVidia binary drivers"
> When used to build the packages repository, they should be mutually compatible: either disable both or enable both.


Packages are always built from the default options. Perhaps PC-BSD works differently but that's the case for any of the official package repositories.

The x11/nvidia-driver port is a bit special. It overwrites a few files that are installed as part of Xorg.


----------



## kpa (Jun 17, 2013)

SirDice said:
			
		

> The x11/nvidia-driver port is a bit special. It overwrites a few files that are installed as part of Xorg.



The same problem with the FreeBSD native libGL was fixed a while ago but not very well, it's still possible to overwrite libGL with the wrong version depending on the order the ports/packages are installed in. The Linux libGL seems to be still broken and produces a conflict between the PKGNG packages.

The correct solution would be a virtual package (like in dpkg) that provides a libGL library and the ports that need it wouldn't have to know in advance which one they are going to get at install time. Unfortunately virtual packages are not yet supported by PKGNG.


----------



## achix (Jun 17, 2013)

SirDice said:
			
		

> Packages are always built from the default options. Perhaps PC-BSD works differently but that's the case for any of the official package repositories.



I have the impression that until recently (last Friday), PC-BSD's PKGNG repository was the only PKGNG "official" repository. Has anything changed in the meantime?


----------



## SirDice (Jun 17, 2013)

There is no official FreeBSD PKGNG repository yet.


----------



## tankist02 (Jun 18, 2013)

Am I correct that's around eight months without official packages? Why is it taking so long?


----------



## kpa (Jun 18, 2013)

PKGNG is not official yet, the old style packages are still the default on all supported versions of FreeBSD.


----------



## tankist02 (Jun 18, 2013)

I am wondering about availability (or not) of official package repositories. They went offline November last year after the security incident. It looks like after eight months they are still offline.


----------



## fonz (Jun 18, 2013)

tankist02 said:
			
		

> I am wondering about availability (or not) of official package repositories. They went offline November last year after the security incident. It looks like after eight months they are still offline.


Official package repositories still use the old current format and are perfectly available. If you mean PKGNG repositories, then as @kpa said, PKGNG is *not* official yet. Moreoever, it probably won't be until 10.0-RELEASE comes around.


----------



## phoenix (Jun 18, 2013)

tankist02 said:
			
		

> I am wondering about availability (or not) of official package repositories. They went offline November last year after the security incident. It looks like after eight months they are still offline.



pkg_add(1) repositories for all supported RELEASE versions have been available for a week or two now.

pkg(8) repositories are not available for any supported RELEASE versions, as pkg(8) is not installed by default nor enabled by default on any RELEASE version.  Once it is the default, official repositories will be made available.

Until then, there are several unofficial repositories (including the PC-BSD one) that you can use.  Or you can create your own repository using ports-mgmt/poudriere or by installing things from the ports tree.


----------



## achix (Jun 18, 2013)

Still no clue about any possible "official" workarounds described in #3? Why does pkg want to reinstall the very same package?


----------



## SirDice (Jun 18, 2013)

achix said:
			
		

> Still no clue about any possible "official" workarounds described in #3? Why does pkg want to reinstall the very same package?



Because its dependencies changed.


----------



## achix (Jun 18, 2013)

Aha, thank you, so the next question is how do I tell the local database and/or remote repository that the current dependencies are the correct ones?


----------

