Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:45:43 +0200 From: Torsten Zuehlsdorff <mailinglists@toco-domains.de> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org>, Per olof Ljungmark <peo@intersonic.se> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth] Message-ID: <20a46aff-b313-9253-8461-6d4d8f28a000@toco-domains.de> In-Reply-To: <9499F327-172A-4E04-B446-05EE5F08CC51@adamw.org> References: <589B133C-0175-4DD2-8847-5A3E0E697B36@dsl-only.net> <20170530200629.GA10517@lonesome.com> <b0af0ae5-74fc-b932-5d4a-3697c5d3e666@intersonic.se> <20170530215306.GB11098@lonesome.com> <CAN6yY1stP9iFs5in-J4VGqLP88p_CEcykerDNePxm9490GiG4w@mail.gmail.com> <d8ba380d-50e7-c110-d3e4-d12c718c7144@intersonic.se> <9499F327-172A-4E04-B446-05EE5F08CC51@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 31.05.2017 20:31, Adam Weinberger wrote: >> On 31 May, 2017, at 11:28, Per olof Ljungmark <peo@intersonic.se> >> wrote: >> >> On 2017-05-31 02:10, Kevin Oberman wrote: >>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Mark Linimon >>> <linimon@lonesome.com <mailto:linimon@lonesome.com>> wrote: On >>> Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:46:46PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote: >>>> Hello, I have not followed this thread before but just wanted >>>> to say that I use portmaster extensively, it works for us and I >>>> would miss it if it went. Are there actually plans to retire >>>> it? >>> To reiterate the status: * some extensive changes to the ports >>> framework are coming; * these will require large changes to all >>> the port upgrade tools; * no one has stepped forwards to offer to >>> do the work for anything other than poudriere AFAIK. If no one >>> does the work, at the time the large changes come, the other >>> tools will break. People have been wanting subpackages (aka >>> flavors) for many years; IIUC these are parts of the changes that >>> are coming. Someone needs to step forwards and say "yes, I will >>> do the work." mcl Since portmaster is still popult and since the >>> only solutions that looks to be available in the near term are >>> pouderiere or raw make, neither terribly viable for many, I will >>> look into updating portmaster to deal with 'flavors'. This looks >>> fairly straight forward and I my have the sh capability to manage >>> it. (And then again, I am far from a great shell person, so I may >>> well be wrong.) I have looked at Doug's script and it is pretty >>> readable, but writing may require help. Can someone point me >>> where to look for documentation on flavors? I have poked around >>> the wiki, but to no avail. Unless there is documentation on what >>> needs to be done, doing it will be hopeless and waiting for the >>> packaging system to updated means portmaster WILL be broken for >>> some period of time. >> >> Let me just say that I would really, really appriciate if we could >> keep such a simple tool. Why does it suit us? Because we have a >> limited number of systems, and they are all different meaning that >> we custom build for almost every task. Portmaster makes very easy >> to build what we need on each host. Yes, it brakes sometimes but it >> is not that hard to figure out how to get around. > > I want to reiterate that nobody is taking portmaster away from you. > It simply has not been actively developed for years. In all > likelihood, somebody will patch portmaster eventually. Poudriere is a > safer, more capable tool than portmaster, and it's better to migrate > when there's no immediate time pressure or breakage. > > The changes are not about to drop. Portmaster is not going to stop > working tomorrow. We are bringing it up now so that you have time to > consider migrating to poudriere or synth. If your system(s) and > workflow make poudriere a viable option, we want to encourage and > help you to migrate while there's no time pressure. > > Sending emails to this list about why you prefer portmaster doesn't > change the underlying problem, though: portmaster will only be > long-term viable if somebody actively develops it again. Just as a short note: there is a complete rewrite of portmaster ongoing. Since its a beast and everything else is very hard there is no public evidence in case of failure. ;) Until now. I'm currently try to convince all persons already got frustrated by portmaster-programming to come together and work on it. I'm also working at an decent automatic QA for it (and PHP and GitLab). Greetings, Torsten
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20a46aff-b313-9253-8461-6d4d8f28a000>