The ports collection has some serious issues

[John Marino]

On 12/18/2016 23:42, Jim Trigg wrote:
> On 12/18/2016 02:24 AM, John Marino wrote:
>> 2) portmaster's dirty build method is inferior to clean environment
>> builds (true)
>> 3) There is better and official alternative (true)
>
> Maybe. I have a case where portmaster (on my current production box)
> builds fine but poudriere (on my intended replacement production box)
> does not.
>
> Case in point: php70-pdo_*. The first time I tried a build pdo_sqlite
> failed. This time (after correcting other ports' option problems)
> pdo_mysql fails for basically the same reason - pdo_* cannot find pdo
> because pdo thinks PHP_EXT_DIR=20151012-zts but pdo_* thinks
> PHP_EXT_DIR=20151012 - log for the latter below signature. Yet doing the
> build with postmaster works fine.

Wasn't that a global bug that was fixed?
You logic is faulty IMO.  All binary packages produced officially for 
FreeBSD are built with poudriere.  If poudriere can't build it due to a 
bug in the port itself, then nobody gets the package.  Obviously that's 
unacceptable, so the port bug gets fixed, quickly.

So it sounds like you're saying that poudriere is too strict at 
enforcing correctness and you need something more forgiving?

Unfortunately, port maintainers break the tree.  Usually the big breaks 
are avoid with EXP-RUNs but it's common to see updates where downstream 
dependencies weren't tested and break (aside: IMO this it is the 
responsibility of the person updating the first port to verify the deps 
still build but not everyone does this).

So sometimes you hit a tree break and that's what happened.  It was 
fixed right?  The bottom line: if a port doesn't build on poudriere and 
synth, the issue must be fixed, not worked around by using a tool 
incapable of detecting it.  That's how most of the "I use portmaster and 
this doesn't work" topics get started.

>> 4) There's a second, even more effective alternative for x86 platforms
>> (true)
>
> I can not as yet contest this. I haven't tried synth because if
> poudriere works it will have further value add for me (as a port
> maintainer I can build my port in multiple environments on a single
> box). Dealing with the conversion factor isn't worth it to me for the
> alleged gains synth brings.

I am a big supporter of poudriere.  While many people find they prefer 
synth and enjoy its performance advantage, I will never tell a poudriere 
user to switch if they are happy with poudriere.

John


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus