Re: pkg_install in base system again

[Aleksey Cheusov <cheusov%tut.by@localhost>]

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 4:17 PM, David Holland
<dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2011 at 01:09:14PM +0200, Aleksey Cheusov wrote:
>  > > Or you could set $PATH correctly...
>  >
>  > If we have to explicitely skip outdated and buggy
>  > pkg_* tools in base, what is the reason to have it in base then?
>
> So it works out of the box?

As it was demonstrated by Hauke it actually doesn't.

> To avoid having to bootstrap (an extra
> step that people won't necessarily understand)?

pkg_setup I've just written solves this problem.
If you want to stick to binary updates you just run it once
either manually after installation or via sysinst.

I will adapt it to bootstrap pkgsrc soon.
So, I don't see problem here anymore.

> To avoid having to
> bootstrap so that afterwards you have to remember that /usr/bin/make
> and /usr/pkg/bin/bmake are different and never accidentally mix them
> up?

Yesterday I realised that it would be nice to use any [b]make available
on the system for pkgsrc. I think this can easily be achived by introducing
PREFIX/etc/pkgsrc.conf config file. It is just a replacement for
.ifdef BSD_PKG_MK/.endif section in /etc/mk.conf and solves some
confusions people experience with global /etc/mk.conf having very
different functions.
Several months ago
David Brownlee proposed something close but my proposal is a bit different.

Anyway /usr/bin/make vs. bmake is irrelevant to pkg_* in base discussion.

> It's a serious usability issue.
If bootstrapping was the only way to prepare pkgsrc for work, then, yes,
it would be a serious usability issue.

> --
> David A. Holland
> dholland%netbsd.org@localhost