Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 09:29:26 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The ports collection has some serious issues Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1612150919460.36773@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <20161215155139.4a3d6033@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <c5bc24cc-5293-252b-ddbc-1e94a17ca3a8@openmailbox.org> <20161208085926.GC2691@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1612150722250.36773@wonkity.com> <20161215155139.4a3d6033@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, RW via freebsd-ports wrote: > On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 07:40:46 -0700 (MST) > Warren Block wrote: > >> On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Matt Smith wrote: >> >>> On Dec 08 05:16, Daniil Berendeev 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. > > That's a very minor issue, and an absurd excuse to rule-out portupgrade. I didn't rule it out. Portupgrade gets some of the defaults wrong, like not running all the 'make config' steps first. That's a legacy issue because if the default changes, it could conceivably cause problems for existing users. Beyond that, other than a dependency on Ruby, portupgrade at least exists in the same space as portmaster.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.20.1612150919460.36773>