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

Baptiste Daroussin bapt at
Sat Aug 25 00:01:53 UTC 2012

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 03:38:33PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> Hash: SHA256
> On 8/24/2012 1:15 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > 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
> As others have already pointed out, this is a bad idea for a variety
> of reasons, not the least of which is security related. It also
> removes one of the primary benefits of pkg, that it be (fully) hosted
> in the ports tree.

Can anyone give me he details on the security related problem?
Can I also have the details on why it would remove the benefits of being fully
hosted in the ports, I have no plan to remove it, currently the ports tree is
also able to bootstrap itself pkg without needing /usr/sbin/pkg.

the bootstrap tool is currently just a transparent way to bootstrap pkgng, it is
not mandatory at all, one can leave without it, and it doesn't prevent pkgng to
fully leave in the ports tree?

What do I miss here?

Once again I'm not opposed at all to remove it in favour of pkg-bootstrap, but
it currently seems to lacks a bit of detailed arguments.

> Let me rephrase that more simply ... very few users are ever going to
> need the bootstrapping tool that will be in the base. Making it
> mandatory for *every* user is therefore not only a bad idea, it's
> contrary to one of the primary goals of the project.

Why would it be mandatory? it is just a transparent kind of helper tool

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list