Re: pkgin command semantics (was package version numbering change)

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Jonathan Perkin <jperkin%joyent.com@localhost> writes:

> * On 2019-09-11 at 14:13 BST, Greg Troxel wrote:
>
>> Can somebody explain why there is "ug", and when it is
>> reasonable/rational to use it? [edited by gdt..]
>
> Basically, never :)  One useful operation might be to upgrade only
> pkg_install and pkgin prior to a full-upgrade, which may be closer to
> its intended original purpose if mimicking apt behaviour, but even
> then there may still be unintended upgrades if some core library gets
> gets bumped.

I can see the point of doing 'pkgin ug pkg_install' and 'pkgin ug pkgin'
by hand, but I don't see how 'pkgin ug' helps with that. 

So maybe we should fix pkgin, by:

  make ug do what fug does now (change code, man page)

  make fug be a synonym for ug, plus a "warning: fug is deprecated; use
  ug instead"

  drop fug from man page