Removal of Portmanager

Chris Rees utisoft at
Sun Jan 13 16:22:42 UTC 2013

On 13 Jan 2013 16:02, "RW" <rwmaillists at> wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:57:16 -0600
> Bryan Drewery wrote:
> > On 1/12/2013 6:07 AM, RW wrote:
> > >    "Does not support modern ports features such as MOVED, is lacking
> > >    upstream and active contributions, and does not support pkgng.
> > >    Consider using ports-mgmt/portmaster, ports-mgmt/portupgrade or
> > >    pkgng."
> > >
> > > These seem more like bogus excuses than reasons.
> > >
> > > Portmanager doesn't need MOVED, and the author chose not to support
> > > it. There's no compelling reason for portmanager users to switch to
> > > pkgng which may well be the reason no-one has done anything.
> > >
> > > The logical time to remove portmanager is when there are no
> > > supported releases with support for the old package tools - if it's
> > > not been patched to support pkgng by then.
> >
> > I do agree that harmless working ports should remain left untouched.
> > However, portmanager has lacked contributions for years now,
> I submitted a bug-fix a few years ago when I found a bug, I haven't
> submitted any more because I didn't notice any more. Am I to understand
> that we only permit ports to remain in the tree if they have a minimum
> level of incorrectness?
> >while the ports framework and goals have moved on.
> This is something that people say but never cite any sensible examples.
> The changes seem to me to be pretty transparent. For me portmanager
> works better than on the day development ceased. All the problems I've
> had with updates are traceable to the port system itself.
> > The other reasons listed do matter as it lessens the overall user
> > experience of FreeBSD ports, if the tool you are using doesn't
> > actually utilize the framework fully or correctly.
> How exactly does portmanager underutilise the ports framework? The only
> example that's been adduced is MOVED,  and that was a deliberate design
> decision that's as valid now as ever.
> The use of package files is incompatible with portmanager's design and
> philosophy. If you want to use package files you wont want portmanager
> and vice versa,  pkgng is purely needed to replace the existing
> functionality - it provides no benefit.

Pkgng is also part of the ports tree nowadays, and portmanager must support
it.  The old pkg_install suite will be removed soon.  Portmanager needs

> To me portmaster and portupgrade's limitations lessen the "overall user
> experience" more than portmanager's. It's the only one of the three
> designed to minimise human effort - the other two require much more
> nursemaiding. We now only have the choice of two tools that place more
> value on CPU time than my time, and I regard that as a major loss.
> > Ps. This is coming from the person who got involved with FreeBSD when
> > I was saddened to see portupgrade deprecated.
> At least you had the luxury of realising it was deprecated. FreeBSD
> doesn't exactly announce deprecation  "on display in the bottom of a
> locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the
> door saying Beware of The Leopard" but it's pretty close.

That's the Planning Department!

> We really need a way of flagging this up for installed packages.
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at"

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list