Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 16:31:36 -0700 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth? Message-ID: <20800E88-36EC-49C4-A281-EA6BAB212DBF@adamw.org> In-Reply-To: <b0e44e55-5fc9-af2a-22c8-bfa0d30c866f@columbus.rr.com> References: <CAN6yY1ujLFdKpuG4Rxz%2Bfww9gAxTBaY14iCB7RFTkh-oVB1%2B9A@mail.gmail.com> <BN6PR2001MB1730A16025654AB7C452111B80390@BN6PR2001MB1730.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> <CAOc73CD9VnLKv8-jBNW1Uj05LnEFh6kkZFKNAxp-EG9YO_AUxA@mail.gmail.com> <1512211220.79413.1.camel@yandex.com> <BN6PR2001MB17309152A0FC3776781AB53B803E0@BN6PR2001MB1730.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> <20171202184356.GA980@lonesome.com> <b0e44e55-5fc9-af2a-22c8-bfa0d30c866f@columbus.rr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 2 Dec, 2017, at 13:41, Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 12/2/2017 1:43 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: >> On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 11:53:58AM +0000, Carmel NY wrote: >>> Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager", >>> "portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has >>> done a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent. >> That's one possible explanation. Or, as Occam's Razor suggests, they >> continue to try to modernize the Ports Collection, despite obstacles >> (including stale codebases and stubborn maintainers). >>=20 >> I'll admit some of the transitions have been pretty rough. But when >> you go back and look at Ports as of e.g. FreeBSD 4, there have been a >> lot of good changes -- including some which were necessary due to = sheer >> scale. >>=20 >> If we had stayed with what we had then, the whole thing would have >> collapsed by now. >>=20 >> mcl >> _______________________________________________ >>=20 >=20 > What you have noe is not that great either. When is base going to be = packed.....ie something that makes sense and works? You seem very angry about things breaking in HEAD, Baho. Things break in = HEAD sometimes. This is why we recommend that end-users who can't have = breakages, or users who depend on undeveloped tools, stay on the = quarterly branch. Portmaster works perfectly on quarterly. Always has. Everyone understands that poudriere isn't for everybody---Steve Kargl = outlined a pretty classic example of a workflow and system that aren't = amenable to poudriere. We've asked repeatedly for people to work on = portmaster. Far more people complain about it breaking than put in ANY = effort to fix it. HEAD is for development. You have to tolerate breakage on HEAD, and = participate in fixing things, otherwise you need to switch to the = quarterly branches. # Adam --=20 Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20800E88-36EC-49C4-A281-EA6BAB212DBF>