From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 21 16:59:38 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7DA98601 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:59:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67B9A113B for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:59:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t3LGxcS7095173 for ; Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:59:38 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 199582] ports-mgmt/portmaster ADOPT (take MAINTAINER) Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:59:38 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: portmaster@bsdforge.com X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 16:59:38 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199582 --- Comment #4 from Chris Hutchinson --- (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.