Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2017 16:29:40 +0200 From: Thierry Thomas <thierry@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth] Message-ID: <20170602142940.GD26373@graf.pompo.net> In-Reply-To: <20a46aff-b313-9253-8461-6d4d8f28a000@toco-domains.de> References: <589B133C-0175-4DD2-8847-5A3E0E697B36@dsl-only.net> <20170530200629.GA10517@lonesome.com> <b0af0ae5-74fc-b932-5d4a-3697c5d3e666@intersonic.se> <20170530215306.GB11098@lonesome.com> <CAN6yY1stP9iFs5in-J4VGqLP88p_CEcykerDNePxm9490GiG4w@mail.gmail.com> <d8ba380d-50e7-c110-d3e4-d12c718c7144@intersonic.se> <9499F327-172A-4E04-B446-05EE5F08CC51@adamw.org> <20a46aff-b313-9253-8461-6d4d8f28a000@toco-domains.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Le jeu. 1 juin 17 à 15:45:43 +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff <mailinglists@toco-domains.de> écrivait : > Just as a short note: there is a complete rewrite of portmaster ongoing. > Since its a beast and everything else is very hard there is no public > evidence in case of failure. ;) Until now. I've been using portupgrade and then portmaster for a long time. I can understand the need for such tools when you have to build ports with non-default options. But I have a naive question: if pkg supports flavours, and binary packages are built for your sets of options, is portmaster still relevant? -- Th. Thomas.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20170602142940.GD26373>