TomAoki

#FreeBSD pkg 2.6.0 is reported to be broken.
https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/dev-commits-ports-main/2026-March/181408.html

`pkg lock ports-mgmt/pkg` is adviced until the issue is addressed.
I've done so as I've noticed the post at the time just pulling updates into my local ports repo.

Acccording to this another report, logic for deletion seems to become too aggressive.
https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/dev-commits-ports-main/2026-March/181412.html

At least on previous version 2.5.1, it can forcibly delete specific pkg only with "-f" option.
But the behavior mentioned in above report suggests that possibly deletions are done for anything depending on the pkg to be deleted, too.

Anyway, users of quarterly wouldn't be affected, as pkg 2.6.0 is not yet merged into 2026Q1.

Re: git: 513318c5d748 - main - ports-mgmt/pkg: update to 2.6.0

Mar 2 at 10:44pmWeb
Show threadbaptMar 3
@TomAoki it is not broken at all, please be careful in how you announce things, it had a regression that only affects portmaster users (and people doing make deinstall in ports) aka a minor part of the users! also to be fair with pkg developers semantically the right behavior of pkg delete -f would be to be recursive! It's not due to pkg_delete legacy, in the future we should introduce a new flag like pkg delete -f --ignore-rdeps and make the ports tree use it
Show threadTomAokiMar 3

@_bapt_
Sorry about the wording.

But I don't think "-f" works recursively by default is a good thing.
It should be the behavior "without -f option", as recursive-to-anything-depending-upon-it shouldn't fail (blocked).
When "-f" is wanted is to forcibly delete single port that is blocked by something depending upon it. And as far as I've experienced, this is the only use-case that "-f" option is wanted. Isn't it?

Show thread*sigh*Ber nardMar 3
@TomAoki By now, pkg 2.6.1 is released.
2.6.0 hasn't made it in to the 150amd64-default pkg build it seems.
Show thread*sigh*Ber nardMar 4
@TomAoki
Meh, it isn't... Just got a new FreeBSD 15 amd64 default repo that wants to install 2.6.0 馃槩
Show threadTomAokiMar 4

@brnrd
Already at 2.6.2 on latest (main) ports tree. Would need some time to appear on official repo.
https://gitlab.com/FreeBSD/freebsd-ports/-/commit/12bf0a1b4881d1d724b7f5f6f96c86147575496b

Note that the regression on 2.6.0 for bare-metal ports upgrading tools is fixed at 2.6.1. Confirmed OK using ports-mgmt/pkg_replace.

Not yet tried 2.6.2 (now preparing for builds in conjunction with other upgrades on my local poudriere running on stable/15).

And 2026Q1 is still at 2.5.1.
https://gitlab.com/FreeBSD/freebsd-ports/-/commits/2026Q1/ports-mgmt/pkg?ref_type=heads

See FreshPorts for confirming which versions are ready for specific branches/archs.
https://www.freshports.org/ports-mgmt/pkg/

ports-mgmt/pkg: update to 2.6.2 (12bf0a1b) 路 Commits 路 FreeBSD / FreeBSD ports 路 GitLab

Changes: - register: properly close the database - fix an issue which make some installed packages temporary invisible to the non root users (regression from the WAL introduction) - fix...

GitLab
Show threadax6761Mar 3
@TomAoki Thank you for the notice.