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 <do...@freebsd.org > > (mailto:do...@freebsd.org)> 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. > /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. :) Jon -- Jonathan Anderson jonat...@freebsd.org _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
