Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:54:30 +0300 From: Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> To: Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Release Engineering Team <re@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Renaming "FreeBSD" repo in /etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf to "FreeBSD-ports" Message-ID: <CALH631=AVBRRAe4qOZ2W22h-M=ZtWiSYtho54of-iOhhjBq36Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5d2daa68-cd27-4a56-9d69-5453b588a086@freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 1:49 AM Colin Percival <cperciva@freebsd.org> wrote: > > To reduce long-term confusion, I'm intending to rename the "FreeBSD" > repository to "FreeBSD-ports", and similarly rename "FreeBSD-kmods" to > "FreeBSD-ports-kmods". Having "ports" in the repository name does not make sense to me at all. Ports are recipes to produce packages, but there are more ways (I know at least one) to create a pkg package. > It defines a "FreeBSD" pkg repository which is in fact specifically bits > maintained *outside* of FreeBSD (and packaged via the ports tree). Can't agree with this either. FreeBSD Ports are maintained *inside* the project as well as package building and hosting infrastructure. It feels perfectly fine to have a single configuration file named after the *vendor*, which provides multiple repos maintained by that vendor.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALH631=AVBRRAe4qOZ2W22h-M=ZtWiSYtho54of-iOhhjBq36Q>