From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sat Dec 2 23:32:02 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0525CE6C6D6 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 23:32:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adamw@adamw.org) Received: from apnoea.adamw.org (apnoea.adamw.org [104.225.5.94]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "apnoea.adamw.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA2251168 for ; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 23:31:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adamw@adamw.org) Received: by apnoea.adamw.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 715dd4a0 TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO; Sat, 2 Dec 2017 16:31:37 -0700 (MST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\)) Subject: Re: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth? From: Adam Weinberger In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 16:31:36 -0700 Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <20800E88-36EC-49C4-A281-EA6BAB212DBF@adamw.org> References: <1512211220.79413.1.camel@yandex.com> <20171202184356.GA980@lonesome.com> To: Baho Utot X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2017 23:32:02 -0000 > On 2 Dec, 2017, at 13:41, Baho Utot 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