Removing documentation

[Michelle Sullivan]

John Marino wrote:
> On 2/15/2016 9:40 PM, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>   
>> Yeah, I'd agree with this... except...
>>
>> pkg_* tools don't exist on 10.x only pkgng...  that makes it base os
>> thing.. even if it's downloaded in/via ports..
>>
>> So sorry don't claim it's only part of the ports system, because whilst
>> it maybe built and administered there, the tools it replaced were
>> removed from the base OS at the very beginning of 10.x...
>>     
>
> What stopped you from installing pkg_* tools from the ports tree on
> 10.x? 
Which port, I wasn't even aware the pkg_* tools where there?  Not
forgetting they wouldn't actually work because the ports tree actively
installs and uses pkg (no matter what options you have) so you're
screwed regardless.

>  You're just talking about them being removed from base, but you
> weren't prohibited from using the tools until they were removed from the
> ports tree (and then you could have just frozen the tree while they were
> still present)
>   
Nice idea except there were a slew of vulnerabilities (notable openssl
IIRC) which had to be patched... and IIRC it wasn't even back ported to
the quarterly.. I know I asked for several patches to be put into the
quarterly and they never were (and one of those patches was on a port I
maintained.)

> Plus now you're in a weird place where you can freely migrate to the
> latest release (10.x) but can't freely migrate package tools?
>   
Sorry? 

pre 8.4 pkg_* only.
8.4 + 9.x pkg_* or pkgng - user choice.
10.x pkgng only.

Seems to be a good path to get people to switch without the pain.

> Michelle, it's seriously very weak to say ports are tied to releases
> because something moved out of base.  Stuff moves out of base all the
> time (and actually not fast enough).
>   
Wasn't the point I was making, but people will jump on that to give
weight to their argument.  I was supporting someone else's notion that
it would have been a lot more sensible and painless had it been done ...
(eg like I suggested above) ... however it wasn't.. arbitrary date
set...  That said, you cannot deny..  10.x didn't have working pkg_*
tools (as in usable - because bapt (and others) made sure there were so
many version checks so if you were on 10.x the ports tree would not use
pkg_* tools even if you went to the source and compiled them like I
did...  seems to me like they had already chosen to go the way I
suggested above, but too many people stayed clear of 10.0 so they forced
the issue on everyone else...  Here's the fact: I run configure and my
systems, not some random wheeny that wants me to debug their software. 
I know the 'wheeny' is friends with people on here.. and a lot more
respected by many than I ever will be when it comes to this mailing
list, but I really don't care, I say it how it is, you may agree or
disagree with me, I will respect you if you do, however you will never
change my mind nor will I just shut up and go away whilst I have a
single box affected (which means until they are all migrated.)

Michelle

-- 
Michelle Sullivan
http://www.mhix.org/