Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 01:47:26 +0100 From: Jonathan Anderson <jonathan.robert.anderson@gmail.com> To: Glen Barber <gjb@freebsd.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Steve Wills <swills@freebsd.org>, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pkgng suggestion: renaming /usr/sbin/pkg to /usr/sbin/pkg-bootstrap Message-ID: <DAE2E96E648E4607A997294B3461BECB@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120825003346.GA1345@glenbarber.us> References: <97612B57-1255-4BB3-A6D3-FC74324C6D67@FreeBSD.org> <20120824081543.GB2998@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <50380269.6020003@FreeBSD.org> <67BB0A66-A9D2-4257-A91E-C249B8076A87@gmail.com> <20120825003346.GA1345@glenbarber.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday, 25 August 2012 at 01:33, Glen Barber wrote: > On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 01:25:15AM +0100, Jonathan Anderson wrote: > > On 24 Aug 2012, at 23:38, Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org (mailto:dougb@FreeBSD.org)> wrote: > > > Let me rephrase that more simply ... very few users are ever going to > > > need the bootstrapping tool that will be in the base. > > > > > So, then they won't use it. I fail to see the problem here. I also fail to see the problem. :) Just to be clear, my post was arguing against Doug's assertion that few will use pkg's bootstrapper (and that this is a problem): I hope that pkgng and package sets will vastly increase the use of binary packages by FreeBSD consumers. > /usr/sbin/pkg installs /usr/local/sbin/pkg without requiring the Ports > Collection to be available locally. Which is exactly the behaviour that I want: I view the ports tree as a last resort to be used only if binary packages fail to fulfil my needs. Sometimes I don't even bother fetching it. Once again, we may be in violent agreement here. :) Jon -- Jonathan Anderson jonathan@FreeBSD.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?DAE2E96E648E4607A997294B3461BECB>