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

Colin Percival <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports,gmane.os.freebsd.current
Message-ID <[email protected]>
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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.