Removing documentation

[Kevin Oberman]

On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 3:37 AM, Steven Hartland <killing at multiplay.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 14/02/2016 11:25, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Kevin Oberman wrote:
>>
>>> My experience is that pkg(8) has been wonderfully robust since 1.3.
>>> before
>>> 1.3 it was a real pain in the neck, though I never had a need to rebuild
>>> the DB, I did ave to do a bit of fix-up. I really, really wish Bapt had
>>> listened and held up the default to pkg for a bit. Much as I like it, it
>>> really was not ready for prime time when it became the default. The early
>>> issues chased too many people away. E.g. you.
>>>
>>>
>> Nailed it!
>>
> The problem with that is its a chicken and egg situation, without it
> hitting prime time it likely wouldn't have got the needed use to identify
> and subsequently fix the issues you're referring to; at the very least it
> would have slowed that process down :(
>
>     Regards
>     Steve
>

Sorry, but I'm afraid not.

There was spirited discussion at the time about the weaknesses and problems
with pkg. It finally came to a head over portmaster. Its author and
maintainer refused to put revisions to support pkg(8) because he felt
strongly that issues with it had to be dealt with first.

To be clear, I was one of those who wanted more development before making
pkg the default. I really, really wanted pkg to help me deal with issues at
work with maintaining FreeBSD that led to its replacement with Linux. As
much as I wanted pkg, it seemed clear to me that it needed more work.
Obviously, I was not on the winning side and there is no going back now
that pkg has become a stable and robust tool that was critical to the
growth of FreeBSD.
--
Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer
E-mail: rkoberman at gmail.com
PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683