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

On 30 Aug 2012 18:03, "John Baldwin" <jhb_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
>
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:39:17 am Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> > On 27-08-2012 18:24, John Baldwin wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 26, 2012 4:37:53 pm Doug Barton wrote:
> > >> The problem is that we don't really support the idea of things in the
> > >> base magically deleting themselves.
> > >>
> > >> As I have said in previous messages, the bootstrapping problem is
being
> > >> overblown by several orders of magnitude. For newly installed systems
> > >> where pkg is the default, /usr/local/bin/pkg will be installed. So
there
> > >> is no bootstrapping problem.
> > >>
> > >> For already-installed systems who wish to switch to pkg, they can
> > >> install from /usr/ports, or use the pkg bootstrap tool in the base.
> > >> Given that they will be intentionally making this change, and there
will
> > >> be instructions written up on how to do this which include the
> > >> bootstrapping step, once again this is a non-issue.
> > >>
> > >> The whole idea of having every call to /usr/local/sbin/pkg pass
through
> > >> /usr/sbin/pkg in order to help a tiny minority of users with a
one-time
> > >> bootstrapping issue is just plain ludicrous.
> > >
> > > I agree.  Even if we keep /usr/sbin/pkg, we will presumably want to
remove
> > > it from the base in a year or so via 'make delete-old', etc.  Given
that,
> > > I'm not sure we need it there in the first place.
> >
> > What if you pkg_delete \* or rm -rf /usr/local? Do you have to "reboot"
> > pkg then?
>
> Yes, if we've decided it (pkgng) should not be part of the base.  This
> doesn't strike me as that weird.  It seems similar to how one has to
> bootstrap, say, MacPorts.

Difference is, MacPorts isn't the official Mac distribution centre.

Leaving out pkg-bootstrap (or whatever) is marginalising ports as a
non-integral part of the OS.

How useful is base on its own, really?

Chris