Karl Denninger <k...@denninger.net> wrote: > How many of us have done an "rm -rf" in the wrong place? Uh..... same > thing when you get down to it, right?
The problem with this analogy is that "rm -rf" hasn't changed - the "-f" wasn't suddenly changed from something innocuous to "force". Pople using "pkg delete -af" are used to using it to delete all ports. I'll often do that when upgrading a server to a new major release - update the base OS, with the appropriate COMPAT and compat-libs, if required, then once that's working, chose a free moment to pkg-delete -af all the ports, and then BATCH rebuild them from a list of previously installed ports. Personally, this won't affect me - I'll adjust, I'll remember, or maybe alias the command, or similar, but there will be fallout. I've nothing against PKGBASE, but I really like the distinction between base and ports - even as someone who uses src.conf flags to reduce the base installation of unwanted bits. I really don't see why "pkg" can't be linked to some other name "basepkg", for example, and then the pkg binary will keep the separation based on the argv[0] - but with a newly addeded flag and/or env variable that allows the same "pkg" to work as is currently proposed. Cheers, Jamie
