Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 22:33:35 +0000 From: Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc Message-ID: <7eca64c0-7ce5-4392-a78d-d1e3b06be098@gjunka.com> In-Reply-To: <eb8996069bd97c6197d65f812cbb7e73@ultimatedns.net> 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> <E63C98F5-0416-4338-B560-8BCD1E23FC16@adamw.org> <2a1d1356e707b94e2dafa331c69ef692@ultimatedns.net> <c051c5a6-c2aa-f2f9-cb84-1e34f99ceec5@gjunka.com> <eb8996069bd97c6197d65f812cbb7e73@ultimatedns.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 05/10/2017 22:27, Chris H wrote: > On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 22:05:05 +0000 Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com> wrote > >> On 05/10/2017 21:53, Chris H wrote: >>> On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:52:51 -0600 Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> wrote >>> >>>>> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 10:28, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:31:41AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>>>>>> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 9:25, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> >>>>>>> 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. > I'm afraid I'm not really following you. What I'm saying, is that I > am seeking to be Maintainer for ports-mgmt/portmaster. > I am saying that it is an especially difficult task to perform -- > especially in light of 1) it isn't even up-to-date for the /current/ > state of the ports tree, and 2) isn't [yet] ready for Flavo[u]rs, 3) > let alone sub-packages. So I would feel more inclined to make the > Maintenance effort, a /team/ effort. So that those whom currently > depend on it, and continue to enjoy it's use. > I hope this helps clear my intentions up. :) I do get it now, sorry for the confusion. But in that case I frankly don't think you should expect much help ;-| Developers who would be able to help you maintain the port most likely are already happily using poudriere...
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7eca64c0-7ce5-4392-a78d-d1e3b06be098>