Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2025 13:50:20 +0100 From: Marek Zarychta <zarychtam@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: changing from pkgbase to regularbase Message-ID: <d6ed185f-ed13-4a2c-a875-1b687a0f7b8b@plan-b.pwste.edu.pl> In-Reply-To: <20251122180931.52c1141475f5faec4fad633c@dec.sakura.ne.jp> References: <aR3Rc_5llfvlEjIo@int21h> <aSEGPTtrfV29u9R9@amaryllis.le-fay.org> <71e4b46c-8d69-451d-92ca-79316ffc4b63@app.fastmail.com> <aSETbVSLxcDa5ssB@amaryllis.le-fay.org> <20251122180931.52c1141475f5faec4fad633c@dec.sakura.ne.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
W dniu 22.11.2025 o 10:09, Tomoaki AOKI pisze:
> I don't think disallowing de-pkgbasifying is a good idea.
> IIRC/IIUC, legacy distribution sets goes away on 16.0, at least from
> dvd1 image.
+1
Dear Subscribers of the FreeBSD-CURRENT list,
since a longer while using central build server and make
install{kernel,world} over NFS is probably the most efficient ways to
keep FreeBSD up to date. We have had this privilege since the very
beginning. Introducing freebsd-update(8) was a good step forward and
made system maintenance easier for newcomers and for people with limited
time or resources. The transition to pkgbase is another positive
development, and one that will certainly be appreciated by the community.
Switching from RELEASE to STABLE has always been possible. Why should
pkgbase be an exception in this regard?
While delivering a limited or trimmed-down OS with pkgbase is certainly
possible, the same is true when installing from source. In fact,
upgrading the world and kernel over NFS is often even faster and less
resource consuming than using pkgbase. It would be a great loss for the
community if this old, seamless, and proven-to-work method were ever
deprecated in favour of pkgbase.
Cheers
--
Marek Zarychta
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d6ed185f-ed13-4a2c-a875-1b687a0f7b8b>