Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 22:45:24 -0800 From: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> To: Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com> Cc: FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: The ports collection has some serious issues Message-ID: <CAN6yY1v4ouNwUP=o4gZCHhCUNrNdtpAp0p1WHT6m2DB_3vjXwQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20161216054202.GC75755@server.rulingia.com> References: <c5bc24cc-5293-252b-ddbc-1e94a17ca3a8@openmailbox.org> <20161208085926.GC2691@gmail.com> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1612150722250.36773@wonkity.com> <3b00e76a-7a97-aa1b-72e9-236161044c3b@m5p.com> <20161215183122.GG5268@pol-server.leissner.se> <20161216054202.GC75755@server.rulingia.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Peter Jeremy <peter@rulingia.com> wrote: > On 2016-Dec-15 19:31:22 +0100, list-freebsd-ports@jyborn.se wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:18:05PM -0500, George Mitchell wrote: > >> On 12/15/16 09:40, 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. [...] > >> > >> Warren, you have hit the nail on the head. -- George > > > >+1 > > > >I never have problems with portmaster. > > I don't know about never - I think I managed to get it into a dependency > loop once - but I've never had any issues that I could not resolve or > that would entice me to look at an alternative. > > >(But portupgrade could at times be an utter mess, > >I never looked back after switching to portmaster > >many years ago.) > > Likewise, portupgrade would explode and shower my system with bits of > corrupt database to often for comfort. At least part of that was caused > by portupgrade depending on quite a few other ports and getting confused > when it updated things whilst it was using them. > > >And I'm not at all interested in running poudriere > >or synth, thank you. > > Interestingly, the most vocal proponent of deleting portmaster and > portupgrade is the author/maintainer of synch. > > -- > Peter Jeremy > Just to add another voice of those who use portmaster on a regular basis. I moved to portmaster about seven years ago and have has very few issues with it. I have had issues building ports from time to time, but it's been a long time since i hit one that was not a problem with the port... often related to the options I use. I like that it has no dependencies. I like that it is very stable. There are things I would like to see changed, but I would be very upset to lose it. Since it is stable, the only way I would lose it is if the underlying port structure changed in a way that required work on it. Saying that synth and poudriere are replacements for portmaster/portupgrade simply indicate lack of familiarity with my (and others) use cases. I have used synth and it is excellent, but not on my development system where everything is built from source and I hope always will be. I have found portupgrade too fragile for the reasons mentioned. I had to clean up a mangled database once too often. (Yes, it is a flat text db, so it can be fixed manually, but it is NOT fun!) -- Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAN6yY1v4ouNwUP=o4gZCHhCUNrNdtpAp0p1WHT6m2DB_3vjXwQ>