On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 10:32:30AM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: > > One could imagine having the following populated and kept appropriately > up to date separately from any potential official port-tree builds: > > > https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:1[3456]:armv7/latest/Latest/pkg*.pkg* > https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:1[3456]:riscv64/latest/Latest/pkg*.pkg* > > (Is more required for FreeBSD's not-port-based pkg to bootstrap to such > that is port based?) > > They would have to track the oldest supported minor version of the major > FreeBSD version. > > > As stands, for armv7: > > https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:1[345]:armv7/latest/Latest/pkg*.pkg* > > have builds from back in 2025 Sep./Oct that are from before the official > armv7 port-package builds were stopped. They are not being kept up to > date with the port-based pkg releases. But, for all I know, the vintages > present might still be appropriate for use. > > Only FreeBSD 16's: > > https://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:16:armv7/latest/Latest/pkg*.pkg* > > has no matching files of any vintage. (It does not have latest/ at all.) > > > But I'm not sure that having port-based pkg's available to boot strap to > this way (or analogous) would be reasonable overall, including the issue > of keeping them appropriately up to date (whatever the details would be). >
I was thinking to ftp only an initial /usr/ports tree, use make in that tree to compile git and then use git to keep /usr/ports updated. One could then build local versions of poudriere and git, with pkg updating from /usr/src. What could possibly go wrong? 8-) Eventually, FreeBSSD will drift away from supporting old tier-2 platforms, but that's inevitable. Thanks for writing, bob prohaska
