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

Glen Barber gjb at
Sat Aug 25 01:01:00 UTC 2012

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 01:47:26AM +0100, Jonathan Anderson wrote:
> 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 at (mailto:dougb at> 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.

I was avoiding writing two separate emails about this thread - yes, I
did realize we had a similar point of view on this.  Sorry if it came
out differently.

> > /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. :)

Understood.  I misinterpreted your last sentence.

What I would like to know, is why all the anti-progress emails[1] have
to wait until the Last Minute(tm) when information on pkgng availability
has been available for quite some time now.

Welcome to 2012.

[1] - Doing the same things we've done keeps us in the same place we've


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list