Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 17:31:55 +0300 From: Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@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: <CALH631n6M7_9i1820fNaOApMr2E=BFZbaA2m%2B06pgjYPuw3faQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7c48e14d-b463-4523-8610-e18ac99f3381@FreeBSD.org> References: <5d2daa68-cd27-4a56-9d69-5453b588a086@freebsd.org> <CALH631=AVBRRAe4qOZ2W22h-M=ZtWiSYtho54of-iOhhjBq36Q@mail.gmail.com> <7c48e14d-b463-4523-8610-e18ac99f3381@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 5:22 PM John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > On 8/20/25 01:54, Gleb Popov wrote: > > 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. > > But the packages in that repo are generated by FreeBSD ports? Yes, they are. Ok, if we're going full bikeshedding mode then I think that repos should be named after what they represent rather than from what they are built. That is, - FreeBSD packages - FreeBSD base packages - FreeBSD kernel modules All right, maybe "FreeBSD packages" looks like a superset of the latter two, so we can call it "FreeBSD main packages", which aligns nicely with "FreeBSD quarterly packages". > > >> 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. > > What if people only wish to use pkg.freebsd.org for base but not ports > or vice versa? User can disable whatever repository he wants, it has nothing to do in what config file this repo is declared.help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALH631n6M7_9i1820fNaOApMr2E=BFZbaA2m%2B06pgjYPuw3faQ>