From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Dec 15 15:49:58 2016 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 AEAB6C81047 for ; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 15:49:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tz@FreeBSD.org) 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 7C94C96F; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 15:49:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tz@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [0.0.0.0] (mail.toco-domains.de [IPv6:2a01:4f8:150:50a5::6]) by toco-domains.de (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 812EA1AAF011; Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:49:56 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: The ports collection has some serious issues To: marino@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Mailing List , wblock@wonkity.com References: <3959e18e-5819-b2c5-69a9-c71ce1282383@marino.st> From: Torsten Zuehlsdorff Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:49:56 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3959e18e-5819-b2c5-69a9-c71ce1282383@marino.st> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed 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, 15 Dec 2016 15:49:58 -0000 On 15.12.2016 16:29, John Marino wrote: >>>> Although portmaster is not releated to the FreeBSD project and is an >>>> outside tool, there aren't any alternatives from the project itself. So >>>> use it or die. Not a nice situation. >>> >>> People have been trying to get portmaster deprecated and removed from >>> the >>> handbook but have met with resistance. >> >> Well, yes. Because it works, has no dependencies, and there is no >> equivalent replacement. Except maybe portupgrade, which has legacy >> problems like poor default options. > > Every single week, somebody falsely accuses the ports tree of being > broken but the accuser is the only one with the problem. What do they > all have in common? They are portmaster users. I'll iterate, saying > "portmaster works" means applying a very generous definition of "works". Not really, no. Its not every week and often there is a misuse or miss-understanding of portmaster. With an argument like this you can also state there is every week a falsely accuse, because of poudriere. This would also be true (and is). >>> The recommended replacements are ports-mgmt/synth and >>> ports-mgmt/poudriere. >>> These build an entire package repository that the pkg tool can use >>> but they >>> do so in clean chrooted environments, and rebuild everything that's >>> required >>> to keep a consistent ABI. Synth is more designed for a single live >>> system >>> like a desktop or a single server, whereas poudriere is what the freebsd >>> package build clusters use and is more designed for that type of >>> usage. Worth >>> taking a look. >> >> These are package builders. Technically preferable, given adequate disk >> space and memory, but not equivalent to portmaster. > > It's like saying git and svn are not equivalent to cvs. I have a hard time to see git in this line. Its the way you use it. Yes, of course all three are code repositories. But one of them is a distributed repository and the other two are not. The differences are huge. Of course it also depends on your usage. I personally (means "heavily subjective) find git more than annoying. It lacks very important features (user management), is hard to use in automatic environments and make easy things (rename/delete branches) very hard. Other people really like all of this. It depends. So maybe the accusers just use the wrong tool? Greetings, Torsten