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

[Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:28:22AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> 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

Strongly seconded

-- 
Manuel Bouyer <bouyer%antioche.eu.org@localhost>
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--