From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Oct 5 22:13:42 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 54E4EE43ECA for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 22:13:42 +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 0F97C63BF7 for ; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 22:13:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adamw@adamw.org) Received: by apnoea.adamw.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 529b0d62 TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO; Thu, 5 Oct 2017 16:13:37 -0600 (MDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Subject: Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc From: Adam Weinberger In-Reply-To: <2a1d1356e707b94e2dafa331c69ef692@ultimatedns.net> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 16:13:36 -0600 Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <8F813EC0-BEC2-42F1-AFA3-257569692DA8@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> <2a1d1356e707b94e2dafa331c69ef692@ultimatedns.net> To: Chris H X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) 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 22:13:42 -0000 > On 5 Oct, 2017, at 15:53, Chris H wrote: >=20 > On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:52:51 -0600 Adam Weinberger = wrote >=20 >>> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 10:28, Steve Kargl = >>> wrote:=20 >>> 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=20= >>>>> libm will simply skip i686 class hardware. >>>>=20 >>>> 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". >>>>=20 >>>> 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. >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> Mere users of the ports collection are not privy to discussions >>> on a portmgr alias/mailinglist. A quick scan of the members of=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> 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.=20 >>=20 >> 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.=20 >>=20 >> 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.=20 >>=20 >> # 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. :( I remember that. I have to admit, I was pretty shocked by it as well. > 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 > no other reason, for my own sanity. But better; that it can/will be > more promptly addressed. IOW problems that arise, can more easily > be addressed when a group of individuals are involved with it's > maintenance. >=20 > Seem a reasonable request? If [found] so, I'll solicit for qualified > individuals to work with me on it in a new thread. >=20 > Thanks for your time, and consideration Please reach out to tz first, as he currently maintains the port. = Portmaster desperately needs an active developer, and even better if = there's a team involved (single responsibility is always a bad long-term = plan). Let me know what you need. I'll give you whatever support I can. # Adam --=20 Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org