Do I want to switch to the new pkg(8) format?

[Christopher Sean Hilton]

On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 03:38:59PM -0700, Warren Block wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2014, Christopher Sean Hilton wrote:
> 

[ ...snip... ]

> >For me
> >managing more than five boxes with ports alone is a big chore and a
> >management headache. Honestly, if you aren't tweaking a bunch of ports
> >then pkg* is the way to go but, as a former ports user, and a current
> >poudriere user, I believe that it's up to you to determine how you
> >want to spend your time.
> 
> But pkg is required either way.
> 

That's a not-so-subtle change that I didn't get because I moved from
pkg_* to pkgng or pkg last spring. And before that I had tweaked ports
and /etc/make.conf such that the default behaviour was package
oriented as it is in OpenBSD. It deserves amplification.

In a little more detail: Today the this set of commands: 

   # cd /usr/ports/editors/emacs
   # make install

uses pkg to build a pkgng format binary package and installs emacs
from said package. Thus the ports system now requires pkg. 

Before 9/2014 the same cd ... make install sequence would: build and
install the emacs port with all of it's dependencies; and register the
port such that the pkg_* utilities would work as expected. It would
not: build a single file binary install package for emacs or any of
it's dependencies.

I'm tempted to wax poetic on the beauty of the ports system here but I
will refrain. Instead I will just state that this change in behaviour
is a very very good thing.

-- 
Chris
--
      __o          "All I was trying to do was get home from work."
    _`\<,_           -Rosa Parks
___(*)/_(*)____.___o____..___..o...________ooO..._____________________
Christopher Sean Hilton                    [chris/at/vindaloo/dot/com]