pkgsrc pkg_* > base pkg_*: how to properly do it

["Martin S. Weber" <Ephaeton%gmx.net@localhost>]

Hoi everybody,

a daily warning that I'm getting reminded me to finally write this
message.  See, the daily scripts are good for something, as in,
sometimes you can actually fix the problems they're reporting (in
contrast to having to fix packages' man pages' installation routines
for apropos to shut up but let's not get carried away).

So there's netbsd's base system pkg_* tools and then there's the
pkgsrc pkg_* tools. Obviously, the former will lag behind the
latter, especially in installations, as I expect people to update
their pkgsrc (-installed packages) more often than their base
system. I know I do. I might be the alien in that respect though.

Now I do remember past arguments (involving Joerg S as a very vocal
party) regarding abandoning base's pkg_*. I had the impression that
as a result of this, pkg_* gained the capability to launch their
latest installation, but I may be wrong. What I do remember though,
is that the security script (hmm or daily? or pkg_install.conf? I
think it was pkg_install.conf up to a certain point..) at one time
accepted keys to say which pkg_* to use. I.e., you could have both
base and pkgsrc stuff be installed, you wouldn't have to do something
dirty with your path such as put $LOCALBASE before the rest, etc.
Evidently, this capability was removed at some point.

With varying paths for different users etc., I wanted to make sure
that I am always using the latest pkg_* version installed. To
achieve this, I umask'd the stuff in base to 0. ...which is fine
in about every use case, except for the security/daily scripts,
which stubbornly insist on using the base system's pkg_* tools.

Naturally, we wouldn't want to use outdated pkg_* tools in our
daily security script, right.  So what is the 'correct' and 'blessed'
way to deal with this situation? Or is there no user input necessary
in the end?

Appreciate pointers,
Tia,
-Martin