Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 14:25:01 -0600 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: Thomas Mueller <mueller6722@twc.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The future of portmaster Message-ID: <9284B642-95B4-459E-859E-DAA9C665954B@adamw.org> In-Reply-To: <B7.5D.01815.EC3DD295@dnvrco-omsmta03> References: <201705301351.v4UDpHwY048949@mech-as222.men.bris.ac.uk> <9FEDBFCE-27D1-432B-926B-7BF401AD7B19@adamw.org> <B7.5D.01815.EC3DD295@dnvrco-omsmta03>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 30 May, 2017, at 14:19, Thomas Mueller <mueller6722@twc.com> wrote: >=20 >=20 > One thing I forgot to mention in my last post is that the UPDATING = file looks geared to portmaster and portupgrade. >=20 > Users are thus led to believe that portupgrade and portmaster are = still the currently recommended tools. >=20 > If the ports people want to get users to switch to synth or poudriere, = updating instructions should include synth and poudriere. There are no updating instructions for them. They do the right thing = automatically. Only portmaster needs its hand held every time something = gets updated. The only difference is that things go into a make.conf in = /usr/local/etc/poudriere.d/ rather than /etc/make.conf (see = CUSTOMISATION in poudriere(8) for details), and I don't know if synth = has a special place for it too. # Adam --=20 Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9284B642-95B4-459E-859E-DAA9C665954B>