From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 25 09:36:56 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 30E8F106566B for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:36:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matthias.andree@gmx.de) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9556A8FC14 for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 09:36:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2011 09:36:53 -0000 Received: from g229210208.adsl.alicedsl.de (EHLO apollo.emma.line.org) [92.229.210.208] by mail.gmx.net (mp003) with SMTP; 25 Jul 2011 11:36:53 +0200 X-Authenticated: #428038 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/hcdlKWIbhkcC4MZWBDvo6OEEJ22rNEFuOvmB0iX cVZWZer+PwebmK Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by apollo.emma.line.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6525B23CE4E for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:36:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E2D392F.1080902@gmx.de> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:36:47 +0200 From: Matthias Andree User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <4E2D1C36.7060400@FreeBSD.org> <1311583851.1812.81.camel@xenon> In-Reply-To: <1311583851.1812.81.camel@xenon> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 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 09:36:56 -0000 Am 25.07.2011 10:50, schrieb Michal Varga: > 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. You will do once it's the only tool. OK, I wasn't being serious. Seriously the point is that new users should be kept away from a tool that is known to have lots of unfixed bugs. > 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. Lack of port quality and maintenance are good reasons for removal. > 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. Doug is aware of the problem, and it isn't a case against portmaster. Frankly I haven't even tried if portupgrade would have been able to handle it. Anyways, there are various upgrades that *neither* of the two tools can handle without manual help of the administrator. This frequently happens if a certain interdependent set of packages (such as GNOME) moves functions between ports, or removes a port. Basically I'd say let's mark portupgrade without EXPIRATION_DATE and with DEPRECATED= and bump PORTREVISION, stating as reason that we need a volunteer to maintain it and else people should use portmaster. If someone picks it up, problem solved. If not, we at least scare new users away and direct them to portmaster. Marking the port DECPRECATED like that gives the maintenance problem a much wider exposure than just repeated discussions on mailing lists that no-one (in relation to the overall user count) reads.