Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2020 14:40:10 -0700 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: Franco Fichtner <franco@lastsummer.de> Cc: "@lbutlr" <kremels@kreme.com>, FreeBSD <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Portmaster failing Message-ID: <6D2033C3-225B-422F-8285-110085BC7B33@adamw.org> In-Reply-To: <DFB2B8B8-97DC-4EF3-9F98-338ED971EB01@lastsummer.de> References: <DFB2B8B8-97DC-4EF3-9F98-338ED971EB01@lastsummer.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jan 1, 2020, at 14:23, Franco Fichtner <franco@lastsummer.de> wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFHi Adam, >=20 >> On 1. Jan 2020, at 10:18 PM, Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> wrote: >>=20 >>> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 1:51 PM @lbutlr <kremels@kreme.com> wrote: >>>=20 >>> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:46, Franco Fichtner <franco@lastsummer.de> wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> On 1. Jan 2020, at 9:42 PM, @lbutlr <kremels@kreme.com> wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> On 01 Jan 2020, at 13:40, Franco Fichtner <franco@lastsummer.de> wrote= : >>>>>> security/openssl was removed before, now security/openssl111 has beco= me security/openssl. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Ugh. >>>>>=20 >>>>>> A bit too eager for my taste, but that's why we all have private tree= s, don't we. ;) >>>>>=20 >>>>> This is going to go poorly, if previous attempts to update to 1.1 are a= ny indication. >>>>=20 >>>> With PHP 5.6 axed prematurely a while back I am interested to see OpenS= SL 1.0.2 >>>> phased out now with a number of ports still not supporting 1.1.1 and se= eing them >>>> marked as broken sooner or later. >>>=20 >>> Well, at this point I cannot install openssl111 without deinstalling ope= nssl, which I cannot deinstall since it is gone from ports. >>>=20 >>> Looks like I have to remove openssl, which =E2=80=A6 I mean, seriously, t= his seems pretty hostile. >>>=20 >>> Name : openssl >>> Version : 1.0.2u,1 >>> Installed on : Sun Dec 22 08:13:27 2019 MST >>>=20 >>> There was nothing at all on the 22nd about =E2=80=9CWARNING THIS WILL BR= EAK EVERYTHING IN A WEEK=E2=80=9D which to mean seems like it should have be= en made super obvious. >>=20 >> This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere. >=20 > Let me stop you right here and say: ports Framework itself is > suffering from this wishful attitude and this has nothing to do > with readily available poudriere "replacements" which are not > as good as poudriere for sure. >=20 > If the ports framework isn't seen as a stand alone infrastructure > worth its own integrity the discussion is already dead and the > quality will keep to decline for every casual FreeBSD user who > doesn't really care for this or that tool, but wants to install > software from the ports tree manually. >=20 >=20 > Cheers, > Franco I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. The ports tree has grown to= o complex for a simple =E2=80=9Cmake install=E2=80=9D to be a predictable pr= ocess. What we have now is a major usability problem wherein we have a large= handful of tools, all but one of which are essentially broken. We do need a= new approach to this problem.=20 # Adam =E2=80=94 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?6D2033C3-225B-422F-8285-110085BC7B33>