Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 11:41:18 -0700 From: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, linimon@lonesome.com, Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>, list1@gjunka.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc Message-ID: <20171005184118.GA97889@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> In-Reply-To: <E63C98F5-0416-4338-B560-8BCD1E23FC16@adamw.org> 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> <E63C98F5-0416-4338-B560-8BCD1E23FC16@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 10:52:51AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: (courtesy long-line wrap) > 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. Nope. No conspiracy theory here. But, the above is a good method to deflect attention and blame. I simply find it ironic/comical that someone dreamt up flavours/subpackage for the ports collections with the knowledge that this will break all tools used to manage ports, and portmgr which is charged with Discusses how that the way that the Ports Collection is implemented affects the above policies, and, in particular, such concepts as changes that require regression tests and sweeping changes. (see https://www.freebsd.org/portmgr/) seems to have endorsed a "sweeping change" with this outcome. Then that someone managed to convince developers of a single ports management tool to implement support for flavours/subpackaged. So, portmgr now is going ahead with a "sweeping change" at the expense of all other ports management tool. I have simply pointed out, portmgr and contributors to that single ports manange tool have a significant overlap. Nope. No conspiracy. Just the truth. So, Adam, if the poudriere developers had stated that poudriere would not support flavors/subpackages would portmgr still wedge the necessary infrastructure into the Makefiles and *.mk files? -- Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20171005184118.GA97889>