Re: pkgng suggestion: renaming /usr/sbin/pkg to /usr/sbin/pkg-bootstrap

On 08/24/2012 10:15, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 06:19:57PM -0400, Steve Wills wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It seems to me that renaming the pkg binary in /usr/sbin/pkg to /usr/sbin/pkg-bootstrap would make sense. From a user standpoint, it is confusing that running the command gets different results the second time it is run vs. the first time. I can imagine a user saying "I ran pkg, but it didn't do what they said it would.  Now I run it again, and it does do what it is supposed to." Also, it would enable setting up a pkg-bootstrap man page separate from the pkg man page, without confusion about which one you're looking at.
>>
>> So, opinions? There may still be time to fix it for 9.1 if we can decide quickly.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Steve
>>
> 
> BTW for people who haven't tested and want to share their opinion, here is how
> work /usr/sbin/pkg:
> 
> it first checks if ${LOCALBASE}/sbin/pkg is there
>  - if yes it directly execute ${LOCALBASE}/sbin/pkg with arguments passed to /usr/sbin/pkg
>  - if no then it will determine you ABI (or take the one in environnement
>    variable), and fetch the last available pkgng version from http://pkgbeta...
>    it will extract pkg-static and use it to install pkgng with itself.
>    on installation is done:  it executes ${LOCALBASE}/sbin/pkg with arguments
>    passed to /usr/sbin/pkg.
> 
> Lots of people having ask in the early days of pkgng for a transparent bootstrap
> I have done it that way.
> 
> On of the thing I forgot and kan_at_ has added is a prompt for the user in case it
> is going to bootstrap.
> 
> So that mean that for a normal user, on a fresh vanilla FreeBSD
> "pkg install vim-lite" will prompt the user asking if he wants to bootstrap
> pkgng, and once bootstraped proceed to the installation of vim-lite
> 
> if pkgng is already there then it will just install vim-lite.
> 
> It was just to clarify, so that anyone understand was this is about.
> 
> I tend to like the bootstrap like it is now (I find it transparent, and straight
> forward) but as I said earlier I have no strong opinion on this, so it most
> people prefers a separate pkg-bootstrap tools then I'll do it :)

Having installed a few 9.1-BETA1 boxes recently, i have to say i
absolutely like this behavior, it's totally transparent and you can just
start installing packages like you could with pkg_add -r. I don't see
the need to introduce an additional step. I actually think the current
behavior is user friendly, and renaming it would make it more difficult.
If people think the current behavior is misleading we could still
clarify the confirmation message.

Florian