Suppose I define a "principal $G$-bundle" as follows:
A principal $G$-bundle is a fiber bundle $F \to P \overset{\pi}{\to} X$ with a left group action of $G$ on $F$ that is free and transitive, together with a trivializing cover whose transition maps are $G$-valued.
However, it seems that many references define "principal $G$-bundle" via a right action of $G$ on $P$ (not $F$).
How does my definition induce a natural right action of $G$ on $P$? Can this be done without saying the phrase "identify $F$ with $G$"?
The reason I would like to avoid this identification is two-fold. First, I would like to keep the fiber $F$ and the group $G$ separate in my head -- at least for now -- in part because not all $G$-bundles are principal. Second, and more importantly, I am concerned that any identification of $F$ with $G$ will involve an arbitrary choice of base-point of $F$, and I would rather not make such unnecessary choices if possible.
Ultimately, I would like to say that the specified trivializations in my definition of "principal $G$-bundle" are $G$-equivariant with respect to the actions on $P$ and $F$. I would like to deduce this as a consequence of the definition of the $G$-action on $P$, rather than taking this equivariance as the definition of the action.
Aside: As usual, this question is a refinement of a previous, less focused question of mine.