Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 16:49:56 +0100 From: Torsten Zuehlsdorff <tz@FreeBSD.org> To: marino@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, wblock@wonkity.com Subject: Re: The ports collection has some serious issues Message-ID: <f35be27a-67b9-27a6-1350-69a65b7b9435@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <3959e18e-5819-b2c5-69a9-c71ce1282383@marino.st> References: <3959e18e-5819-b2c5-69a9-c71ce1282383@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f35be27a-67b9-27a6-1350-69a65b7b9435>