Re: RFC: Renaming "FreeBSD" repo in /etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf to "FreeBSD-ports"
Gleb Popov <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ports,gmane.os.freebsd.current |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CALH631mCY9g8O8Fmwye1+YyVX0xdD8Hn=uu5heYy0xZafRKzQQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 1:20 PM Matteo Riondato <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 20, 2025, at 6:15 AM, Gleb Popov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 12:48 PM Matteo Riondato <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> It’s unclear (to me) whether that’s the *correct* way, or the *recommended* way (pkg(8) calls it “a common idiom”), and in either case *why* is that the recommended/correct way: what breaks if one modifies /etc/FreeBSD.conf ? Why does it break? > > > > The /etc/pkg/FreeBSD.conf file comes from base (some pkgbase package > > or as a result of make installworld or something like that). This > > means that system upgrades must handle edits to this file somehow - > > either by overwriting your changes with vanilla version or by merging > > them, which can't be done 100% automatically. > > This is true for so many files under /etc, and we have a solution with etcupdate (indeed, not 100% automatically, but widely accepted). There is no etcupdate involved with binary package upgrades. But there is still a 3-way merge, yes, but like you said, it is not 100% automatic. So why not avoid the possibility of a merge conflict if we can do that?