Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2016 15:45:52 +0400 (AMT) From: Hrant Dadivanyan <hrant@dadivanyan.net> To: John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> Cc: Hrant Dadivanyan <hrant@dadivanyan.net>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Removing documentation Message-ID: <E1aT6jw-000MGn-1T@pandora.amnic.net> In-Reply-To: <56B9C862.2000105@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 2/9/2016 11:52 AM, Hrant Dadivanyan wrote: > > It's fine that there is such an excellent tool as synth, but in server > > environment, when only a few ports are installed, having a management port > > with 17 dependencies is not reasonable. > > Rather that parroting this phrase, I would like to see some technical > reasoning about this dependency criticism. Would you be willing to > provide that? > > What I would like to see you address is: > > 1) As was just stated earler this morning, having synth installed is 2 > packages: Synth itself and ncurses. These "17 dependences" are build > requirements and not installed. So what is "unreasonable" about that? > So will require any upgrade of synth by itself, correct ? If build from sources, of course. > 2) If 17 dependencies are such a concern, why would you not install it > via official freebsd packages? > Ports buiding is also official. Phrasing of your question sets the preference in favour of prebuilt packages, my preference is opposite. > 3) If there is a corporate policy to build everything from source, what > would be the issue to use an officially packaged Synth to build Synth > (along with the other packages) so that the locally built Synth could > replace the downloaded version? > In my case it's just a preference to build everything locally. > As established earlier both by text and the recently posted architecture > drawing, Synth is not in the critical path and removing it has no > adverse affects on a system so the whole, "I'll be left in a bad state > argument has been debunked" > > This is not a rhetorical set of questions, I would very much like to see > how you answer these, given your opinion on this is unreasonable. I > would like to understand how this is a problem and why there are no ways > to address it. > There is no need to address it, because of two quite different use cases. As far as I can see synth is excellent in some cases, my point is that portmaster is fine in some other ones. > thank you, > John -- Hrant Dadivanyan (aka Ran d'Adi) hrant(at)dadivanyan.net /* "Feci quod potui, faciant meliora potentes." */ ran(at)psg.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E1aT6jw-000MGn-1T>