Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2017 18:57:05 -0500 From: Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth? Message-ID: <599f4e1f-fe06-282c-1b4b-872f2a0e15c6@columbus.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <eeeab339fdb4b75a0ba9471e5e050a1f@udns.ultimatedns.net> References: <eeeab339fdb4b75a0ba9471e5e050a1f@udns.ultimatedns.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/3/2017 3:46 PM, Chris H wrote: > On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 11:53:58 +0000 "FreeBSD Ports ML" > <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> said > >> On Saturday, December 2, 2017 5:40 AM, Stari Karp stated: >> > On Sat, 2017-12-02 at 01:12 +0000, Ben Woods wrote: >> > > Hi Carmel, >> > > >> > > My understanding is that poudriere is the only package building >> system >> > > that is officially supported by the portmgr, apart from raw make. >> > > >> > > There are many other nice ports building tools contributed by the >> > > community, which each have their niche market, but the >> maintenance of >> > > those tools is a community responsibility also. >> > > >> > > The announcement of impending flavors and breakage of package >> building >> > > infrastructure that doesn’t support it was some time ago (I >> believe at >> > > least 6 months), with a number of reminders since then. If a >> community >> > > >> > Yes, 6 months but IMO ports maintainers have still 2 or three months. >> > They "pushed" flavors out to early. I do not why. >> >> Well, I certainly have no intention of installing and then learning >> how to >> use >> an industrial sized solution line poudriere for a relatively small home >> network. >> >> I am hoping that someone can get "synth" back up and working >> correctly. If >> not >> it might be time for me to look at another OS for my network. >> >> Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager", >> "portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has done a >> pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent. Which >> brings me >> to what happens if I do embrace "poudriere". How long before that >> becomes >> history also? > port-mgmt/poudriere gets the attention, and maintenance that it does, > because > it was created, and is maintained by someone with a commit bit > (bdrewery). > port-mgmt/synth was also created, and maintained by someone with a > commit bit > (jmarino). > However, John's commit bit was taken away. While I'll not comment as > to why, > nor elaborate on my personal stand/feelings regarding that action. I > can say > that he has superseded synth with an application called Ravenports[1]. > I also attempted to take on ports-mgmt/portmaster early on in my > endeavors > as a ports maintainer. However, that experience also didn't go well, > and I'll > not bog this thread down with the details. My main intent for my > reply, is > simply to indicate as to why history has been the way it has regarding > the > other ports management utilities, and to indicate there is another > possible > solution, that was not previously mentioned. That I thought you (and > others?) > might be interested in. :) > > [1] > https://github.com/jrmarino/Ravenports > https://github.com/jrmarino/ravenadm > https://github.com/jrmarino/ravensource >> >> -- >> Carmel > > --Chris > Had a look at Ravenports. Thanks for the info. It looks a lot like and rpm spec file. If that thing really works, I can get behind it. It look like what the ports system should have been.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?599f4e1f-fe06-282c-1b4b-872f2a0e15c6>