Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:59:38 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 199582] ports-mgmt/portmaster ADOPT (take MAINTAINER) Message-ID: <bug-199582-13-eAGEK6W3ai@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-199582-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-199582-13@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=199582 --- Comment #4 from Chris Hutchinson <portmaster@bsdforge.com> --- (In reply to John Marino from comment #3) > This is my point -- it's not about managing, it's about creating. It has to > stay in sync with the tree. > > The last time we had a lot of interaction, I was pushing hard for you to > provide poudriere test logs and IIRC, you never go poudriere running. Well, > portmaster is essentially another implementation of a big chunk of > poudriere. > > So my concern is: if you were having trouble _using_ poudriere, how can we > be confident that you can reimplement it? > > > Most of those PRs require signficant fixes. This is not a "management" > task, it's active development. This is why it was dropped -- too much > requirement to maintain, no discernible benefit (I am not included "i like > it better than raw pkg or poudriere" as a real benefit obviously) Thanks for the reply, John. I have no issue with running poudriere. I have an issue running poudriere to best benefit my needs. I can't bend it to my will. So I have simply set up my own Jails, my own way. I appreciate your concern. But I've been thinking about this for *quite* some time, and I'm up for the challenge, or more accurately; the task. Even if I weren't, what's the worst that could happen; that it'd languish a little longer? Honestly; I'm up on it. Thanks! --Chris -- 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-199582-13-eAGEK6W3ai>