From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Tue Oct 3 16:48:52 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF540E422E1 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 16:48:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from smtp10.server.rpi.edu (gateway.canit.rpi.edu [128.113.2.230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "canit.localdomain", Issuer "canit.localdomain" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B30BD80B2F for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 16:48:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from smtp-auth2.server.rpi.edu (route.canit.rpi.edu [128.113.2.232]) by smtp10.server.rpi.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-8+deb8u2) with ESMTP id v93Gd8Ax017726 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:39:08 -0400 Received: from smtp-auth2.server.rpi.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-auth2.server.rpi.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2F481808C; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:39:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [172.16.67.1] (gilead-qc124.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.124.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: drosih) by smtp-auth2.server.rpi.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E838718075; Tue, 3 Oct 2017 12:39:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "Garance A Drosehn" To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Status of portupgrade and portmaster? Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 12:39:07 -0400 Message-ID: <970B517A-2E0C-4540-868D-11CBC0ED2F89@rpi.edu> In-Reply-To: References: <81D84A650858BA40BF6936408052E6BC0138263988@msgdb11.utad.utoledo.edu> <201709290909.v8T99QtU006095@mxdrop301.xs4all.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MailMate (1.9.7r5419) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP X-Bayes-Prob: 0.0001 (Score 0, tokens from: outgoing, @@RPTN) X-Spam-Score: 0.00 () [Hold at 10.10] X-CanIt-Incident-Id: 03Uh4D802 X-CanIt-Geo: ip=128.113.124.17; country=US; region=New York; city=Troy; latitude=42.7495; longitude=-73.5951; http://maps.google.com/maps?q=42.7495,-73.5951&z=6 X-CanItPRO-Stream: outgoing X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 128.113.2.230 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 16:48:53 -0000 On 29 Sep 2017, at 15:21, Marco Beishuizen wrote: > On Fri, 29 Sep 2017, the wise Thomas Mueller wrote: > >> What is the current status of portupgrade and portmaster? >> >> I haven't used portupgrade in some time, but what about portmaster? > > Using portupgrade every day and still works great. Tried portmaster > once but liked portupgrade more. I use poudriere just for testing > ports. FWIW, I still stick with portupgrade and am happy to continue using it. It works fine for my systems and the collection of ports that I use. Every 14-18 months some change comes up where I run into some significant headache with my ports, and when that happens I prefer to rebuild my entire ports collection from scratch. I do this in a chroot environment on that system, so I can start from scratch and build up a full collection without disrupting anything on my system. Once I have successfully build a brand new collection of ports, then I switch from my older ports-collection to the newly-rebuilt ports-collection. During one of those situations where my current ports-collection was experiencing problems, I made a serious effort to try poudriere. It did not work for me in that situation. And based on what I went through in that situation, I suspect it is not a good fit for my (few) freebsd systems. The problem is that I have only a few systems, and they are very different. (different major releases of FreeBSD, different hardware architectures, or significantly different sets of ports). I expect that if I had *more* systems, and if those systems were more similar, then poudriere would be a valuable tool for me. That's my own experience. I doubt it will convince anyone who has a different set of requirements than I do. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = drosih@rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@FreeBSD.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY; USA