> 8 aug. 2025 kl. 04:17 skrev Colin Percival <cperc...@freebsd.org>:
>
> On 8/7/25 18:20, vermaden wrote:
>> OK, Colin Percival just announced 15.0-PRERELEASE - yet the PKGBASE concept
>> - besides 'kinda working' - does not holds to the POLA principle at all -
>> and if anyone will chose to use PKGBASE instead of 'classic' install the
>> 'pkg delete -af' will not only delete all the third party packages but will
>> also WIPE almost ENTIRE BASE SYSTEM of FreeBSD ... this is not unacceptable
>> to say the least.
>
> POLA is inherently subjective; what astonishes one person might be exactly
> what another person expects. In this particular case, while someone might
> indeed be astonished that "forcibly delete everything" deletes everything,
> someone else could well be astonished if "pkg delete -f clang" doesn't in
> fact delete clang.
>
>> My 'vote' here does not changed.
>> Lets keep pkg(8) for third party packages with:
>> - /etc/pkg
>> - /usr/local/etc/pkg
>> - /var/db/pkg
>> Lets have pkgbase(8) for FreeBSD Base System PKGBASE with:
>> - /etc/pkgbase
>> - /usr/local/etc/pkgbase
>> - /var/db/pkgbase
>
> I would like this idea, except for one wrinkle: I don't think it would work.
> In particular, packages installed from ports might depend on packages from
> the base system, so having a single tool which knows about both is necessary.
>
> --
> Colin Percival
> FreeBSD Release Engineering Lead & EC2 platform maintainer
> Founder, Tarsnap | www.tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid
>
>
I disagree, today base does not depend or care of ports. It should continue
this way. In principle i agree with Vermaden. However If it today is desirable
to use some sort of ”packages” functionality for base, fine, just don’t
confuse users with word the ’pkg’. pkgs are ports and per se separated from
base. Take Vermadens suggestion and rename ’pkgbase” to something that makes
you intuitively understand that these are base modules, i.e functional building
block for base.
/Peter
a Ordinary FreeBSD user
