Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 15:41:07 -0500 From: Baho Utot <baho-utot@columbus.rr.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Welcome flavors! portmaster now dead? synth? Message-ID: <b0e44e55-5fc9-af2a-22c8-bfa0d30c866f@columbus.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <20171202184356.GA980@lonesome.com> References: <CAN6yY1ujLFdKpuG4Rxz%2Bfww9gAxTBaY14iCB7RFTkh-oVB1%2B9A@mail.gmail.com> <BN6PR2001MB1730A16025654AB7C452111B80390@BN6PR2001MB1730.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> <CAOc73CD9VnLKv8-jBNW1Uj05LnEFh6kkZFKNAxp-EG9YO_AUxA@mail.gmail.com> <1512211220.79413.1.camel@yandex.com> <BN6PR2001MB17309152A0FC3776781AB53B803E0@BN6PR2001MB1730.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> <20171202184356.GA980@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/2/2017 1:43 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 11:53:58AM +0000, Carmel NY wrote: >> Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager", >> "portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has >> done a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent. > That's one possible explanation. Or, as Occam's Razor suggests, they > continue to try to modernize the Ports Collection, despite obstacles > (including stale codebases and stubborn maintainers). > > I'll admit some of the transitions have been pretty rough. But when > you go back and look at Ports as of e.g. FreeBSD 4, there have been a > lot of good changes -- including some which were necessary due to sheer > scale. > > If we had stayed with what we had then, the whole thing would have > collapsed by now. > > mcl > _______________________________________________ > What you have noe is not that great either. When is base going to be packed.....ie something that makes sense and works?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b0e44e55-5fc9-af2a-22c8-bfa0d30c866f>