Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 15:15:23 +0100 (BST) From: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bris.ac.uk> To: adamw@adamw.org, mexas@bris.ac.uk Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, rollingbits@gmail.com Subject: Re: The future of portmaster Message-ID: <201705301415.v4UEFNJv049083@mech-as222.men.bris.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <9FEDBFCE-27D1-432B-926B-7BF401AD7B19@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From adamw@adamw.org Tue May 30 15:03:31 2017 > >The ports tree continues to evolve. Major new features are planned and in the process of being implemented. These changes will break all the port-building tools. oy vei >poudriere and synth are actively developed, so they will quickly support the new changes. portmaster and portupgrade are no longer being actively developed, so it is anticipated that they will stop working until somebody fixes them (if at all). I last used poudriere a couple years back. It is much more involved than portmaster (obviously, these 2 tools are not doing the same job) >So no, portmaster isn't going away. But, there's no guarantee that it will keep working. We strongly, strongly advise everyone to use poudriere or synth to build their ports, and then plain old "pkg upgrade" to handle updates. because my experience of poudriere was mixed, I haven't used it at all on amd64. pkg is great. And when occasionally I need non-default options I use portmaster. > >The vast majority of problems reported on this mailing list exist only in portmaster/portupgrade, because they do not do clean builds. At this point, portmaster should only be used by people with enough ports development experience to understand and mitigate conflicts and various build errors. I agree that a dirty environement is mostly the source of bad portmaster builds. However, to create the whole poudriere enviroment to build a port a week, or maybe a month, seems like an overkill. Yes, I know, it's a volunteer project, things evolve, unless somebody steps in... If my recollection of poudriere is correct, I'll need a separate ports tree? And if I only need to build a single port with custom settings, I'll have to start every time from scratch? And if I want to use this single port with default settings with my other ports, I need to make sure the 2 port trees are in sync. Sorry if I don't do poudeire justice, it's been a while... Anton
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201705301415.v4UEFNJv049083>