From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sat Dec 17 12:17:43 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 97071C84661 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 12:17:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from abi@abinet.ru) Received: from mail.abinet.ru (mail.abinet.ru [136.243.72.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 616C81DE8 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 12:17:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from abi@abinet.ru) Received: from [10.0.0.1] (unknown [10.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.abinet.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9FDBF1D85C for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 12:10:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=abinet.ru; s=dkim; t=1481976640; bh=2bgkEupJu6nBBY0uGBPU7K+MmYs9wFS/KKjPUyUksus=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=jMME/0oOxXSseU2O9sYQkQWIXirb/H5idedGU5yQQyuVQkMP34aqLfc4VWkid4TlB oiC0LDAYmoZHIRx7BVojX5QCTdcA7XsgvcybWsmKzESJkCL630QoHr0/nq6uuKw7SF AIwUCo188x/ENWi7jk9CL/Z5LzBu1CAeuaRGk0mg= Message-ID: <58552B3F.3050603@abinet.ru> Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 15:10:39 +0300 From: abi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:25.9) Gecko/20161026 FossaMail/25.2.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The ports collection has some serious issues References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 12:17:43 -0000 I tried to switch from portmaster to synth yesterday. Tests was sponsored by zfs snapshots. I still have strong opinion that synth IS NOT replacement for portmaster and not usable at all. Yes, synth build ports, however it's just builds them. I don't receive information: 1. Why it builds exactly this list of ports, what has changed when I upgraded my ports. 2. It doesn't provide dialog for port options, so 2.1 I don't receive information if port options have changed. I don't know what else will be pulled to my system after port tree update. 2.2 If I make option files for all ports, synth fails to rebuild repository if port and it's options are out of sync. 2.3 When port infrastructure switch to newer default version I must be aware that this change occur and set damn options for new default port. So, synth is just a dumb port building tool. If you need your own port options you are in risk. Developer of synth said that the problem is in my 'portmaster thinking' I should change. And now I see that he tried to deprecate portmaster! Fuck it. Until synth gets interactive mode. Probably I will switch to Linux (yes, I know nobody cares) if the ability to keep custom port options will be lost. The only tool for this now is portmaster. Maybe it's my 'portmaster thinking' but I don't understand how one can use synth if he or she want at least be slightly aware what's going on in his/her system. On 17.12.2016 10:49, Hrant Dadivanyan wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote: >>>> On 2016-Dec-15 19:31:22 +0100, list-freebsd-ports at jyborn.se wrote: >>>> Interestingly, the most vocal proponent of deleting portmaster and >>>> portupgrade is the author/maintainer of synch. >> >> It's not interesting at all. Synth was in a large part created because >> people were irrationally sticking with portmaster and more frighteningly >> gaining new users. >> > > Please don't judge what's rational and what's not, because it's community > and when many people, even irrationally from your POV, sticking with > portmaster, then it's worth to consider and look for a way to keep it up. > >> The point is that these tools are in great shape and to imply otherwise >> needs proof. It's portmaster that's not receiving updates. >> > > In current shape it works well for many people (and demanded by) in > community, so why should it be removed ? You can warn as much as you want > against, but you can't decide to remove. >