Re: RFC: Renaming "FreeBSD" repo in /etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf to "FreeBSD-ports"

On 8/20/25 10:31, Gleb Popov wrote:
> 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

But then this last name is wrong.  There are kernel modules in the base system
as well, so that repository does not contain all of the project-provided 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".

"main" vs "base" is not at all clear.  Which one contains the package for
/bin/ls?  Is that in the "main" package set, or the "base" package set?
Shouldn't the "main" package set contain the "main" parts of the system?
(Or at least, isn't it conceivable that some users will think that and get
inevitably confused?)

I think using "ports" in the name is the best way to remove ambiguity.
I would be fine, btw, with using "src" in the name for the base pkg
repository.  I can understand why the logical project is called pkgbase
instead of pkgsrc to avoid conflicting the other pkgsrc project, but these
descriptions seem clear to me:

- "FreeBSD src"
- "FreeBSD ports"
- "FreeBSD ports kernel modules"

And they could be named "FreeBSD-src" and "FreeBSD-ports" without having any
single repository named just "FreeBSD".  This better aligns with how we name
the base system in other places (src.git, github/freebsd/freebsd-src.git, etc.)

>>>> 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.

I had misinterpreted your suggestion to be that there should be a single
"FreeBSD" repo that contained both base and ports packages.  However, it
does not seem that anyone is suggesting that thankfully.

-- 
John Baldwin