From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Oct 5 16:52:59 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46639E3D12B for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 16:52:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adamw@adamw.org) Received: from apnoea.adamw.org (apnoea.adamw.org [104.225.5.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "apnoea.adamw.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 283547D43E; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 16:52:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adamw@adamw.org) Received: by apnoea.adamw.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id fc133fdb TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:52:53 -0600 (MDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Subject: Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc From: Adam Weinberger In-Reply-To: <20171005162853.GA96784@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:52:51 -0600 Cc: Konstantin Belousov , linimon@lonesome.com, Don Lewis , list1@gjunka.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <20171004232819.GA86102@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <201710050027.v950RBFT047711@gw.catspoiler.org> <20171005083558.GD95911@kib.kiev.ua> <20171005145116.GA96180@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20171005145941.GL95911@kib.kiev.ua> <20171005152520.GA96545@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <9B1E1C51-7D87-4DBC-8E7A-D9657BBAAC91@adamw.org> <20171005162853.GA96784@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:52:59 -0000 > On 5 Oct, 2017, at 10:28, Steve Kargl = wrote: >=20 > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:31:41AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 9:25, Steve Kargl = wrote: >>> Which brings me back to my i686 laptop with limited resources. >>> If portmgr makes it impractical/impossible to easily install ports >>> without a sledge hammer, then testing possible future patches to=20 >>> libm will simply skip i686 class hardware. >>=20 >> I'm not clear what role you think portmgr has in this. Portmgr >> merely brings new features to the ports tree. Portmgr itself is >> responsible for no build tool other than "make install". >>=20 >> I don't know how many times I need to keep saying this, but >> portmgr is not killing off portmaster. There is simply nobody >> developing portmaster anymore, and that is not portmgr's >> responsibility. There ARE people developing poudriere, and >> that is why poudriere continues to work with new ports tree features. >>=20 >=20 > I suppose it's a matter of semantics. If the Makefiles and *.mk > files under /usr/ports are altered to allow subpackages and > flavours to enhance pkg and poudriere, which will break portmaster > further, then yes portmgr has made a decision to endorse a sledge > hammer over simple tools. >=20 > Mere users of the ports collection are not privy to discussions > on a portmgr alias/mailinglist. A quick scan of the members of=20 > portmgr and contributors to poudriere show at least 4 common > members. There are 8 people listed under portmgr. When decisions > were being made on the introduction of subpackages/flavours into > the ports collection, did the 4 common members recluse themselves > from any formal or informal vote? If no, then there is certainly > a conflict-of-interest in what is best for the ports collection > versus what is best for poudriere. >=20 > Yes, portmaster is currently unmaintained. Doug Barton left > FreeBSD developement because he was continually brow beaten > whenever he pointed out what he felt were (serious) flaws in > FreeBSD and in the ports collection. Not quite. It works in the other direction. Ports isn't designed for = poudriere. Poudriere is designed for ports. 100% of the flavours = development is happening in public. Anybody who wishes to work on = portmaster can participate in the process too. I think you have a misperception of the relationship between portmgr and = poudriere. The coming flavours would break poudriere too, except there = are people actively developing it. You seem to be fully convinced in a conspiracy to destroy portmaster, = and I don't get the impression that I'm going to change your mind. All I = can tell you is that impending portmaster breakage is NOT by design, and = is only happening because portmaster isn't actively developed anymore. = If you'd like to believe in secret poudriere cabals and anti-portmaster = conspiracies, that's up to you. # Adam --=20 Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org