From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Wed Jan 1 22:28:44 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E4E1E26A5 for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 22:28:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@freebsd.org) Received: from home.opsec.eu (home.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47p5Rb641Kz4SMD for ; Wed, 1 Jan 2020 22:28:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@freebsd.org) Received: from pi by home.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.92.3 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1immTe-0008br-Tu; Wed, 01 Jan 2020 23:28:30 +0100 Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2020 23:28:30 +0100 From: Kurt Jaeger To: "@lbutlr" Cc: FreeBSD Subject: Re: Portmaster failing Message-ID: <20200101222830.GA32466@home.opsec.eu> References: <8DDB987C-5276-4F35-BBD1-84043ED26E03@kreme.com> <288FEB87-3D88-4696-BF83-6918DAE656E5@kreme.com> <4F3040D5-0EA9-44B7-BD69-3CF57A2E19B8@kreme.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F3040D5-0EA9-44B7-BD69-3CF57A2E19B8@kreme.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47p5Rb641Kz4SMD X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.93 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.94)[-0.938,0]; ASN(0.00)[asn:12502, ipnet:2001:14f8::/32, country:DE]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.99)[-0.992,0] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Jan 2020 22:28:44 -0000 Hi! > If FreeBSD is going to REQUIRE poudriere, then go ahead and do > so. If not, then the other packages managers and the ports tree > itself have to work without screwing the admin, failing to build > for inexplicable reasons, inputting a dependency that breaks other > packages, or my favorite, failing to update dependencies. If we'd remove portmaster, we'd loose a relevant part of our user-base, that's why is has not been removed. This caused other issues, as you are well aware. But there's no easy solution given the amount of volunteer skills and capacity available, see below. > > I've mentioned this to you before, lbutlr, because you post about > > encountering these snags quite regularly, and your (quite warranted) > > frustration is apparent. I really do think that your FreeBSD life will > > be simpler if you switch from portmaster to poudriere. > > It is not that simple, of course. This will take quite a lot of work, and a lot of time, for something that I deal with a handful of times a year. This means that for the foreseeable future, I would be starting over basically every time there is some issue. > > > They are simply an inevitable consequence of using a very old and broken tool > > If the tool is broken, remove it. For example: FreeBSD uses mailman2 for lists.freebsd.org, which needs python 2.7, which, as far as the python community is involved, is no longer supported. The open source community (and FreeBSD) really has problems with the velocity of the software involved -- and can barely keep up. So it's not that easy. > > You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major > > mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and > > security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch. > > Since openssl updated about a week ago, this oversight falls into the class that I would call ???inexcusable???. If I did this on a job I would (rightly) be immediately fired. > > I would fire me if I did something like this. If we fired every volunteer when some mishap has happened, we would run of of volunteers very fast. -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 Now what ?