From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Jun 1 13:45:48 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CA3FAFD4FC for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:45:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mailinglists@toco-domains.de) Received: from toco-domains.de (mail.toco-domains.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:150:50a5::6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE65C7A332 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 13:45:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mailinglists@toco-domains.de) Received: from [0.0.0.0] (mail.toco-domains.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:150:50a5::6]) by toco-domains.de (Postfix) with ESMTPA id EBAD41AAF063; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:45:44 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth] To: Adam Weinberger , Per olof Ljungmark Cc: FreeBSD Ports References: <589B133C-0175-4DD2-8847-5A3E0E697B36@dsl-only.net> <20170530200629.GA10517@lonesome.com> <20170530215306.GB11098@lonesome.com> <9499F327-172A-4E04-B446-05EE5F08CC51@adamw.org> From: Torsten Zuehlsdorff Message-ID: <20a46aff-b313-9253-8461-6d4d8f28a000@toco-domains.de> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:45:43 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9499F327-172A-4E04-B446-05EE5F08CC51@adamw.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 13:45:48 -0000 On 31.05.2017 20:31, Adam Weinberger wrote: >> On 31 May, 2017, at 11:28, Per olof Ljungmark >> wrote: >> >> On 2017-05-31 02:10, Kevin Oberman wrote: >>> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Mark Linimon >>> > 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