Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 1 Jan 2020 15:49:11 -0700
From:      "@lbutlr" <kremels@kreme.com>
To:        FreeBSD <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Portmaster failing
Message-ID:  <C53B7AD2-3188-482F-9356-8AFC651C7135@kreme.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200101222830.GA32466@home.opsec.eu>
References:  <8DDB987C-5276-4F35-BBD1-84043ED26E03@kreme.com> <E974C7FA-68A2-4B3F-B230-0DDF46AEEE4C@lastsummer.de> <D4A3ED2A-A208-44DD-876B-5CF3F8EE3541@kreme.com> <A8202C42-7EE5-4235-874A-D5D8C63E2413@lastsummer.de> <288FEB87-3D88-4696-BF83-6918DAE656E5@kreme.com> <CAP7rwcjS7jgBXO7kNDEQcOxVhkQjixf-i6S8NyMx2DJk96ZL4w@mail.gmail.com> <4F3040D5-0EA9-44B7-BD69-3CF57A2E19B8@kreme.com> <20200101222830.GA32466@home.opsec.eu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01 Jan 2020, at 15:28, Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> If FreeBSD is going to REQUIRE poudriere, then go ahead and do
>> so. If not, then the other packages managers and the ports tree
>> itself have to work without screwing the admin, failing to build
>> for inexplicable reasons, inputting a dependency that breaks other
>> packages, or my favorite, failing to update dependencies.
>=20
> If we'd remove portmaster, we'd loose a relevant part of our
> user-base, that's why is has not been removed. This caused
> other issues, as you are well aware.

If you are concerned about losing users without postmaster then fix =
postmaster. Leaving a port manage that is =E2=80=9Cbroken=E2=80=9D is =
not going to do anything but hurt everyone.


> The open source community (and FreeBSD) really has problems with
> the velocity of the software involved -- and can barely keep up.
>=20
> So it's not that easy.

Bit they are perfectly happy to drop support when the replacement =
packages are still not up to snuff.

>>> You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major
>>> mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and
>>> security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this =
switch.
>>=20
>> Since openssl updated about a week ago, this oversight falls into the =
class that I would call ???inexcusable???. If I did this on a job I =
would (rightly) be immediately fired.
>>=20
>> I would fire me if I did something like this.

> If we fired every volunteer when some mishap has happened, we
> would run of of volunteers very fast.

This was the responsibility of a single volunteer? Removing openssl =
without warning wasn=E2=80=99t something that was discussed over the =
last six months?




--=20
Lead me not into temptation, I can find the way.




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C53B7AD2-3188-482F-9356-8AFC651C7135>