David Chisnall wrote:
Let?s remember the thing that started this entire thread: `pkg delete -af`
This is an *incredibly* stupid thing to do. Long before pkg came along,

While there are some scenarios where 'delete -af' can be useful, anyone
using these flags should at least know their implications.  As a
rational for separate pkgbase commands, OTOH, this really seems like a
straw man.

Dimitry Andric wrote:
I'm one of the people that regularly runs `pkg delete -af`, even with
`-y` added. :)  That said, I only use this when I have co mpletely
rebuilt a ports collection with poudriere against a newer base jail, and
then I'd like to start completely from scratc h with freshly installed
packages. This also clears out any unnecessary non-leaf packages there
were pulled in by a previous pa ckage build.

Obviously that is an outlier scenario!

It is now but with the incorporation of base packages and repos it could
be much more common.  For example, to install a distroless jail.  If
'pkg install apache24' would install ONLY necessary package from ports
AND base the disk utilization and maintenance overhead would be a
fraction of what it is currently.  This would bring FreeBSD at least
close to the functionality of Linux containers and kubernetes.

Tomek CEDRO wrote:
I can see that "base" will not be coherent for everyone anymore. If
ports start depending on base packages then circular dependencies will
arise and this will be a Linux-like-mess

Except Linux' packaged base isn't a mess, it just works.

Thse who are lucky enough to work in FreeBSD-only environments don't
seem to realize that FreeBSD's monolithic base is one of the biggest
reasons for its dramatic loss of market share over the past few decades.
The market has also already spoken on utilities too, and nobody is
asking for separate aptbase or yumbase commands.  Those who want *base
commands can easily script them and 'make package'.  The rest of us have
been and will continue to be best served by a single 'pkg' command that
is demonstrably more future-proof.

IMO,
Roger Marquis

Reply via email to