From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 25 09:17:37 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12AAC106566B; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:17:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from varga.michal@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f44.google.com (mail-fx0-f44.google.com [209.85.161.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7544D8FC15; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:17:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fxe6 with SMTP id 6so6536207fxe.17 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 02:17:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization :date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=JiFuT4upoePEDomWVfhvLp//XVq4fR99brOzxInfBLI=; b=TlGomj/cgidemL318oRe2qi7ob4UV7lrXVm3WWKLd49SztrQnWS5qT+HmR0o0DCyPJ na/ARKDoJA5bpmDSDPdVCIkP3LMP6gY2K9b6gcpk8wpvsIMSGke44RPwK+AQMnr7qu/2 pkcVUg1AmN0y0/sBJ4IvMJcNcr6BVUllkiOHo= Received: by 10.223.26.70 with SMTP id d6mr6376286fac.78.1311583855232; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 01:50:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.101.2] (254.166.broadband10.iol.cz [90.177.166.254]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w11sm3672659faj.14.2011.07.25.01.50.53 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 25 Jul 2011 01:50:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Michal Varga To: Tilman =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Keskin=F6z?= In-Reply-To: <4E2D1C36.7060400@FreeBSD.org> References: <4E2D1C36.7060400@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Organization: Stonehenge Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:50:51 +0200 Message-ID: <1311583851.1812.81.camel@xenon> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time to mark portupgrade deprecated? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:17:37 -0000 On Mon, 2011-07-25 at 09:33 +0200, Tilman Keskinöz wrote: > I am ok with switching the documentation to portmaster, but i am against > marking it DEPRECATED. I have been using portupdate for 10 years and it > works for all my usecases. > > Switching to portmaster means i have to learn new -options and new error > messages. Unless there is a killer feature in portmaster i don't see a > reason to switch. Basically, this. I'm on the very same boat, so to reiterate it again, from my point of view: 1. Portupgrade may have bugs, sure, but none of them are critical and every one I know about can be easily worked around whenever situation arises. Some of them are so old now that most regular users probably count them as features. 2. I too have been using portupdate for 10 years (hello!) and it works for all my usecases. 3. Switching to portmaster means retraining for a different *mission critical* software, that behaves differently, and that I currently have no need for, because the former one works fine. To point out a specific examply that I see frequently in UPDATING: If you use portmaster: # portmaster -r icu If you use portupgrade: # portupgrade -fr devel/icu Ok, sure, easy task.. Hey..what? In portupgrade, -r builds all my ports recursively and updates those which are out of date, where -f forces it to rebuild every single one along the path. Clear, right? So why is this different for portmaster? Where is my -f[orce] option? Will -r always rebuild everything? Or will it never, as it is with portupgrade without -f used? IF that's the case, how can my scripts recursively rebuild only needed stuff and...damn. Sure, by that time I spent on writing this email, I might have been halfway through portmaster documentation and have my questions answered, but that's obviously not the point - I just don't need, and don't want to. While portupgrade works (and it works), I don't want spending my time on cross-checking every single usecase between portmaster and portupgrade so that my upgrade scripts can safely play with the new popular kid on the block. Unless there is something fundamentally broken with portupgrade (other than a few open PRs) that prevents it from working on a modern FreeBSD system, I don't see a point in deprecation. Especially when portmaster is *NOT* a drop-in replacement. Again, from recent UPDATING: portmaster cannot process the upgrade of www/p5-libwww from version 5 to version 6. To upgrade p5-libwww, use portupgrade instead, or deinstall p5-libwww before reinstalling: If you use portmaster: # pkg_delete -f 'p5-libwww-5*' ; portmaster www/p5-libwww If you use portupgrade, no special treatment is necessary. m. -- Michal Varga, Stonehenge (Gmail account)