Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 15:50:31 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 199571] ports-mgmt/portmaster: [change-request] please ban portmaster Message-ID: <bug-199571-13-D0t4bPQlka@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-199571-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-199571-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199571 Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bdrewery@FreeBSD.org Resolution|--- |Not A Bug Status|New |Closed --- Comment #4 from Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to torsten.eichstaedt from comment #0) > Rationale: portmaster is a >4000 (!!!) line shell script. It's common sense > that shell scripts are ok for small tasks but quickly become unmaintanable > once they grow. > > Portmaster should simply do "cd /usr/ports && make help" > > Don't laugh I'm serious with this. I'm laughing. Poudriere is what we use to build packages now and is extremely stable and efficient. It is 95% shell script. The language something is written in is not very relevant usually as long as it works. Portmaster has a lot of issues. I will agree that the structure of the codebase in portmaster is very unmaintainable. I don't see any reason to ban it unless it starts doing things wrong, like Tinderbox does now. Closing as this is not a constructive ticket. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-199571-13-D0t4bPQlka>