From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Feb 11 20:17:41 2016 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 2936CAA52C3 for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:17:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsdml@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0747B5E4; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:17:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsdml@marino.st) Received: from [192.168.1.21] (248.Red-83-39-200.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [83.39.200.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCBD743C43; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 14:17:37 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Removing documentation To: Royce Williams References: <56B754A8.3030605@marino.st> <56BCE01D.4010701@FreeBSD.org> <56BCE218.40403@marino.st> Cc: lev@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Mailing List , Kevin Oberman From: John Marino X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56BCEC5F.4020007@marino.st> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:17:35 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 20:17:41 -0000 On 2/11/2016 9:08 PM, Royce Williams wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM, John Marino wrote: >> >> On 2/11/2016 8:25 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA512 >>> >>> On 07.02.2016 17:28, John Marino wrote: >>> >>>> ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing >>>> portmaster can do that Synth can't. (honestly) >>> Be installed FROM PORTS without all this build-one-more-gcc stuff. >>> Ada? For *port*management* tool? Are you joking? >> >> Let me guess. You've spent actually 0.0 nanoseconds preparing on the >> subject before providing this enlightened take for the list. > > > Having read the entire thread, separate from the relative merits of > Synth, the core of Lev's incredulity isn't that off the mark. > > On the face of it, Synth requiring ncurses seems reasonable ... but > its Ada dependency is a bit of a mild POLA violation. > > Don't get me wrong -- I actually think Ada is pretty cool, and Lev > could have been nicer about it ;), but he's essentially right. > > People's instincts are that software management is core functionality, > and should have few unusual dependencies. > > My earlier side-thread point stands. FreeBSD software management is > fragmented. Until that is resolved, a lot of time and effort will be > wasted treating the symptoms. Actually, you missed the fact that synth (nor poudriere) doesnt re-invent anything. Both are tightly integrated with pkg(8). You spoke of both as if they were similar to portupgrade. The "wrapper situation" that you proposed is already here. So the whole "fragmented" thing is not really true. Synth is a binary. There's no POLA there. There's no requirement to build from ports, that's an unsubstanciated invention. Notice that not a single person could defend that position after a challenge. There's no technical basis for it; it's just emotional. In a straight fly-off against any of the tools, Synth wins hands down with any objective measurement. Poudriere is slightly more bulletproof and more appropriate for a cluster (as it was targetted at) but for average user Synth is better suited. It's a concurrent builder. Ada is a concurrent language. How is its suitability even a debate? John