From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sat Dec 17 16:45:09 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 1DF03C84F30 for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 16:45:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B249191C for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 16:45:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 07B42C84F2F; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 16:45:09 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: 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 05A12C84F2E for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 16:45:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.com (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 C70AB191B for ; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 16:45:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ip72-204-83-236.fv.ks.cox.net [72.204.83.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB70043BDE; Sat, 17 Dec 2016 10:43:51 -0600 (CST) From: John Marino Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org To: "ports@FreeBSD.org Ports" , abi@abinet.ru Subject: The ports collection has some serious issues Message-ID: Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2016 10:45:00 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 161217-0, 12/17/2016), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean 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 16:45:09 -0000 abi wrote: > 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. What you are apparently saying is that Synth wants to rebuild certain ports after you update your ports tree and you want the exact reaason why. That reasoning is available via the WHYFAIL environment variable and the new 06_obsolete_packages.log file. Unless you're hunting for bugs in synth, this information is "just for fun". If your goal is to not rebuild packages when synth (and poudriere) say they must be rebuilt, then yes, portmaster is for you along with the consequences. > 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. which of course is a false statement. If you set port options which then change, Synth will stop and tell you to reconfigure or remove the saved port options. > 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. yes, of course. If you give it impossible instructions, it will stop and ask you to fix them. Any reasonable person would want to be informed when the options are incorrect. Did you also notice that extended use of portmaster resulted in dozens of obsolete options files that you weren't aware of? So your criticism here is that you think Synth should just ignore these bad configurations? > 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. Another false statement. The ports framework has a DEFAULT_VERSIONS support which you can override via a profile mk.conf, just as poudriere does. Doing so avoid surprises. There is also an UPDATING file in the ports tree but that's more for portmaster and portupgrade users. > 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. An absurd assertion spoken loudly by someone that is ill-informed on the topic. > 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. Regardless of how factually incorrect your evaluation of the other tools are, you have the freedom to make this choice. > 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. Because everyone else used synth (or poudriere) long enough to understand how those tools actually work. John --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus