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

On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 5:22 PM John Baldwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 8/20/25 01:54, Gleb Popov wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 20, 2025 at 1:49 AM Colin Percival <[email protected]> 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

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".

>
> >> 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.