Re: RFC: Renaming "FreeBSD" repo in /etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf to "FreeBSD-ports"
- Reply: Mark Millard : "Re: RFC: Renaming "FreeBSD" repo in /etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf to "FreeBSD-ports""
- Reply: Matteo Riondato : "Re: RFC: Renaming "FreeBSD" repo in /etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf to "FreeBSD-ports""
- In reply to: Mark Millard : "RE: RFC: Renaming "FreeBSD" repo in /etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf to "FreeBSD-ports""
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2025 00:25:34 UTC
On 8/19/25 17:17, Mark Millard wrote: > Colin Percival <cperciva_at_freebsd.org> wrote: >> With pkgbase being the intended way for users to manage 15.0 systems, >> the current default /etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf gives rise to confusion: It >> defines a "FreeBSD" pkg repository which is in fact specifically bits >> maintained *outside* of FreeBSD (and packaged via the ports tree). > > Not that I consider an appropriate answer obvious, but > the file names as well as the content in the file? : > > /etc/pkg/FreeBSD-ports.conf ? I wasn't planning on changing the file name, no. > The adjusted file naming would tend to suggest a separate file > for pkgbase content. > > Naming left as it is might suggest all in one file, pkgbase > included. Right, I don't see any reason for having separate files. If I thought people might want to delete one of them (e.g. rm /etc/pkg/FreeBSD-base.conf in order to disable pkgbase) then I would separate them; but the recommended way to disable a repository is with an {enabled: no} in /usr/local/etc/pkg/ so I don't see any need to separate these. (But it's not a silly question -- there was some discussion in phabricator just recently about how we should distribute the base system pkg.conf file. That's next on my list after the FreeBSD -> FreeBSD-ports renaming...) -- Colin Percival FreeBSD Release Engineering Lead & EC2 platform maintainer Founder, Tarsnap | www.tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid