Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 17:58:24 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth] Message-ID: <b995c2a0-a768-022b-037e-8f4e012e900b@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1705310842550.57141@eboyr2> References: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1705310842550.57141@eboyr2>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --gaWhp8Veos0xTRBhejIeQRTn74E9bVeSI Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="h9uUi6XI69wxsTF7tBdvRGxpaabu3Qb6H"; protected-headers="v1" From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <b995c2a0-a768-022b-037e-8f4e012e900b@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth] References: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1705310842550.57141@eboyr2> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.11.1705310842550.57141@eboyr2> --h9uUi6XI69wxsTF7tBdvRGxpaabu3Qb6H Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2017/05/31 17:11, Roger Marquis wrote: > Mark Linimon wrote: >> * some extensive changes to the ports framework are coming; >=20 > Is there a URL (other than svnweb) where we can see a project plan for > these changes? As in the recent past (i.e., since 8-REL) the FreeBSD > end-user community has reason to be worried that: >=20 > * popular tools that were broken in the last major ports update (to > pkgng) will again not be considered part of the update, >=20 > * developers and users of those tools will suffer the pain of > significant refactoring (again) and their Linux-advocating co-engineer= s > will be even more effective in reducing or eliminating FreeBSD in thei= r > environments, >=20 > * little discussion and few details will (again) be available before > the transition, and >=20 > * it will (again) not occur exclusively on a major revision boundary. >=20 > ** These concerns are not so much workload-related as much as they are= > planning-related. >=20 > The lack of planning in previous ports/pkg updates was destructive and > unnecessary. Has anything changed? >=20 > Considering the delays in implementing base packages, pkg_audit that > ignores base or recently deprecated ports and yet another major upgrade= > to the ports framework it should not need to be pointed out that our > favorite OS has become far more difficult to update and maintain than > any version of Linux. Core has some proposals around planning for such changes that they will be talking about during the BSDCan devsummit next week. These should also be published internally fairly soon afterwards for the benefit of people not at BSDCan. Cheers, Matthew --h9uUi6XI69wxsTF7tBdvRGxpaabu3Qb6H-- --gaWhp8Veos0xTRBhejIeQRTn74E9bVeSI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJZLvY2XxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQxOUYxNTRFQ0JGMTEyRTUwNTQ0RTNGMzAw MDUxM0YxMEUwQTlFNEU3AAoJEABRPxDgqeTngmYQAJ7glefUyT609NFl7L245dCG nFG9idF116b7bUgh2KsEsJlQNBZaIz2INpgQtVTxYDrXbbTGb17D+63uZsMDJE9x lLjIxCo1SukuVYFVO426kyhhUs0+iJxaTJ04RMrwzFHlWvcG+RNxxWEqaXXHJZGB ahgqdmLAbZN80HJYlsvmJkJNDzHdUsrMgz6NfC8n88jtxtlITpOCj9JYSUJ40lkl hz+GGH08NjdYlXSV1gOBpkOpMcwGsNKD5Oj+x/owZaehrnQB84XVS8kSExiKFy1V 3/tcw3XWs3ysbTsT7gq2pVXxSB7d9SuSSk/ypUnu6IbjlNnNT6yIIJMA4YdSW7B0 XOpOEmYLAbri4ulswCtz2wSYJHcU9oXWfxvfiDpj3QdFCoaU9JZxkb5NYH0g2frK awzo3oMN6T/htHYmf+JhAnzZa7fGlgrFoh5DmraxgYQhS3APzqYxEJLinZ/2QBSW RHpaUXxU2jp9qC+pxQjyPf7e31KKtgooCK6Kt0hb+xul0M//WutZJHUzprjd2GKE JKPMUx3ZyPgBK6Pkyg6ZNtAKHAhN34UA4dqL5lai4lHnm18xUcHNsdi5aPDIfUkQ RM7x4OM4E9l+qlHRGv2OGTZcYw112A/zGp/l6n0edN/hRJo/RZr9Ly+1AmVkz9Zb 8i5QVOWMLab18kl9HkJp =FrRB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --gaWhp8Veos0xTRBhejIeQRTn74E9bVeSI--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b995c2a0-a768-022b-037e-8f4e012e900b>