From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Feb 8 23:05:41 2016 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 963F1AA2EA7 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 23:05:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsdml@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7517A1C0D; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 23:05:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsdml@marino.st) Received: from [192.168.1.21] (248.Red-83-39-200.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [83.39.200.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F20CC43BB8; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 17:05:38 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Moving to synth To: Greg 'groggy' Lehey References: <56B752FD.6000906@marino.st> <20160208134044.GA7839@lonesome.com> <56B89C6F.2010800@marino.st> <20160208220731.GH71035@eureka.lemis.com> <56B91391.8050605@marino.st> <20160208225335.GI71035@eureka.lemis.com> Cc: Mark Linimon , FreeBSD Mailing List From: John Marino X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56B91F3F.2030604@marino.st> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 00:05:35 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160208225335.GI71035@eureka.lemis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 23:05:41 -0000 On 2/8/2016 11:53 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > So how would things improve in this respect if we change to synth? > There we need a maintainer who understands Ada. OK, at the moment > that's you. But what happens when you relinquish maintainership for > whatever reason? Another thing I've said repeatedly: Evaluate portmaster on it's own merit. THis is not about replacements. Whether or not there are alternatives has *NOTHING* to do with whether portmaster is in good shape and is of good quality. To answer your question: IF synth gets into the handbook and then it becomes unmaintained, then you remove it from the handbook. I am totally fine with that. That's how it should be. > My feeling on the matter is that there's space for more than one tool, > as Mathias suggested. But I think it would help synth to have > user-oriented documentation similar to that for portmaster or > portupgrade ("to achieve this, do this..."). I could see this as a > good addition to the handbook (4.5.3.3). A(n objective) discussion of > the pros and cons of the three alternatives would also be useful. that's what the PR was about but the PR was closed before that was outlined, but it would likely need a section like poudriere, not a subsection. If there are 4 tools in good standing, great! I never said there had to be only one. Notice I have not been saying anything about portupgrade. Why? because it's maintained. John