Subscription for committer

[Warren Block]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, John Marino wrote:

> On 12/19/2016 04:18, Boris Samorodov wrote:
>> 17.12.2016 22:40, John Marino пишет:
>> 
>>> I am not subscribed to the mail list
>> 
>> A port's committer is not subscribed to the ports@ ML?
>> Is it a joke?
>> 
>
> I don't want to participate in this list.  The only reason I'm stuck on this 
> topic is because Warren said he wasn't aware of any PRs to correct the 
> handbook and it was important to inform him.

Here is the full quote:

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Matt Smith wrote:

MS> The recommended replacements are ports-mgmt/synth and
MS> ports-mgmt/poudriere. These build an entire package repository that
MS> the pkg tool can use but they do so in clean chrooted environments,
MS> and rebuild everything that's required to keep a consistent ABI. Synth 
MS> is more designed for a single live system like a desktop or a single 
MS> server, whereas poudriere is what the freebsd package build clusters 
MS> use and is more designed for that type of usage. Worth taking a
MS> look.

WB> These are package builders.  Technically preferable, given adequate 
WB> disk space and memory, but not equivalent to portmaster.

MS> It's a shame the handbook hasn't been updated to give this 
MS> information.

WB> Which information, in particular?  A section on Poudriere was 
WB> submitted, and I spent a fair amount of time editing it and getting 
WB> it in there. As far as Synth or other information, I'm not aware of 
WB> any pending Handbook or other documentation submissions.

I apologize for the ambiguity. To repeat, I am not aware of any 
submissions expanding on the package builder documentation. There is 
currently no Synth documentation in the Handbook. Nor has any been 
submitted, again as far as I am aware. Please note that this is not an 
offer to help write or edit such documentation, just another example 
showing that removing mention of portmaster from the Handbook is 
premature.

> (Incidentally he's not responded to it nor the PR).

No.  After handling the first "all mention of portmaster must be stamped 
out" PR, I did not feel capable of giving that additional PR the 
attention it deserved and left it for someone more motivated. Another 
committer has begun working on it recently. I am trying to assist them, 
with my goal being to make the section more modular so it is easier to 
add or remove port and package building tools and show the advantages 
and disadvantages of each.