From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Oct 5 22:05:13 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 F2DD7E43C05 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 22:05:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from msa1.earth.yoonka.com (yoonka.com [88.98.225.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "msa1.earth.yoonka.com", Issuer "msa1.earth.yoonka.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A991263717 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 22:05:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) Received: from ultrabook.yoonka.com (p4FE21BFE.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.226.27.254]) (authenticated bits=0) by msa1.earth.yoonka.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id v95M5AMa063578 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 22:05:11 GMT (envelope-from list1@gjunka.com) X-Authentication-Warning: msa1.earth.yoonka.com: Host p4FE21BFE.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [79.226.27.254] claimed to be ultrabook.yoonka.com Subject: Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.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> <2a1d1356e707b94e2dafa331c69ef692@ultimatedns.net> From: Grzegorz Junka Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 22:05:05 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2a1d1356e707b94e2dafa331c69ef692@ultimatedns.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-GB-large X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 22:05:14 -0000 On 05/10/2017 21:53, Chris H wrote: > On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:52:51 -0600 Adam Weinberger wrote > >>> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 10:28, Steve Kargl >>> wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:31:41AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>>>> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 9:25, Steve Kargl >>>>> wrote: Which brings me back to my i686 laptop with limited resources. >>>>> If portmgr makes it impractical/impossible to easily install ports >>>>> without a sledge hammer, then testing possible future patches to >>>>> libm will simply skip i686 class hardware. >>>> I'm not clear what role you think portmgr has in this. Portmgr >>>> merely brings new features to the ports tree. Portmgr itself is >>>> responsible for no build tool other than "make install". >>>> >>>> I don't know how many times I need to keep saying this, but >>>> portmgr is not killing off portmaster. There is simply nobody >>>> developing portmaster anymore, and that is not portmgr's >>>> responsibility. There ARE people developing poudriere, and >>>> that is why poudriere continues to work with new ports tree features. >>>> >>> I suppose it's a matter of semantics. If the Makefiles and *.mk >>> files under /usr/ports are altered to allow subpackages and >>> flavours to enhance pkg and poudriere, which will break portmaster >>> further, then yes portmgr has made a decision to endorse a sledge >>> hammer over simple tools. >>> >>> Mere users of the ports collection are not privy to discussions >>> on a portmgr alias/mailinglist. A quick scan of the members of >>> portmgr and contributors to poudriere show at least 4 common >>> members. There are 8 people listed under portmgr. When decisions >>> were being made on the introduction of subpackages/flavours into >>> the ports collection, did the 4 common members recluse themselves >>> from any formal or informal vote? If no, then there is certainly >>> a conflict-of-interest in what is best for the ports collection >>> versus what is best for poudriere. >>> >>> Yes, portmaster is currently unmaintained. Doug Barton left >>> FreeBSD developement because he was continually brow beaten >>> whenever he pointed out what he felt were (serious) flaws in >>> FreeBSD and in the ports collection. >> Not quite. It works in the other direction. Ports isn't designed for >> poudriere. Poudriere is designed for ports. 100% of the flavours development >> is happening in public. Anybody who wishes to work on portmaster can >> participate in the process too. >> >> I think you have a misperception of the relationship between portmgr and >> poudriere. The coming flavours would break poudriere too, except there are >> people actively developing it. >> >> 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. >> >> # Adam > While I have no intention to speak on Steve's behalf. I /would/ like > to speak in his humble defense; > over year ago, I attempted to become maintainer for > ports-mgmt/portmaster. I did so 1) because I /strongly/ believed in > it's value, and 2) it had been scorned for some time, and there were > /many/ discussions to have it removed. At the time I attempted the > request, it had not "officially" had a maintainer, and there was > serious talk as to /really/ having it removed from the ports tree. > bdrewery@ had been nursing it along. Conspiracy, or not. Grepping the > mailing list for portmaster /will/ show /many/ heated discussions > regarding it's removal -- this thread included. In any event, after > a few inquiries regarding taking maintainer for the port. My request > was ultimately declined. I was deemed unqualified. That judgement was > unfounded. :( > Granted, maintenance of portmaster is no small feat -- it's an > enormous scriptbal. But now some months later, I am maintainer for > ~120 ports! perform a search for portmaster@ and see for yourself. > You can say what you will about some of those ports, but what it > /does/ show, is commitment, and long term commitment to boot! > I grow weary of the circular discussions surrounding portmaster. So > this is what I'd like to propose. It's maintenance is a bigger job for > anyone whom is not it's original author, for anyone that did not > grow it from scratch, and become so intimately familiar with it. So > perhaps a better solution might be for me to attempt again ask to > become maintainer. But this time, make it a group effort -- if for What does it mean in practical terms? A list of signatories under your candidature and a recommendation letter? Endorsements sent to a particular email? I don't quite understand why would anybody want to decline a request to maintain a port that is unmaintained otherwise? Are they expecting better candidatures? I would understand if they had 10 proposals to maintain the same port, but not if there is just one? But I am not good at politics so maybe I am missing something. GrzegorzJ