On 8/20/25 01:54, Gleb Popov wrote:
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 1:49 AM Colin Percival <cperc...@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?
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?
--
John Baldwin
