Philosophy of default "pkg_add -r" PACKAGESITE?

[Dan Nelson]

In the last episode (Sep 04), Kris Kennaway said:
> Gary Affonso wrote:
>> I'm curious, why does "pkg_add -r" point to the "release" snapshot
>> of ports by default?  Is the idea that a "release" is well-tested
>> and that any deviation from that (even security or bug-fix changes)
>> is an unknown that new users need to be shielded against when
>> grabbing packages with "pkg_add -r"?  Seems to me it would be better
>> to have "pkg_add -r" point to stable (which, if I understand things
>> correctly, does get updated packages).
> 
> -release packages have gone through an extensive period of testing
> with that release, so you have more confidence they will work.  The
> up-to-date packages may not work, may not even be present on the FTP
> site, and in general are not suitable for users who just want a
> working system without having to fiddle with it.
> 
> i.e. defaulting to the packages that came with the release is a
> conservative step that is appropriate for users who just want
> packages that work, and don't care about always having the latest
> versions.  For the rest of you, you're going to be doing a lot more
> hands on admin anyway, so setting one env variable is not a heavy
> burden.

Also, packages from the -stable directory may have
different/conflicting dependencies compared to existing packages on
your system.  Imagine installing 6.2 before the x.org-7 update, then
trying to "pkg_add -r" a package from the -stable directory that
depends on an xorg-7 feature.  pkg_add just isn't smart enough to
realize that you really need to upgrade all of X, and will probably
fail the install at some point.  Ideally one would install 6.2 from a
CD, select the packages they initially want, then pull an updated
/usr/ports tree and update their system from that using their favorite
tools from the ports/port-mgmt directory.

-- 
	Dan Nelson
	dnelson at allantgroup.com