Subscription for committer

[John Marino]

On 12/19/2016 18:36, Warren Block wrote:
> 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.

And since then an influential former member of portmgr has opined that 
"compare and contrast" is not needed, but in fact the reference should 
just be removed.

The presence or lack of reference synth material in the handbook itself 
doesn't justify the presence or removal of material for portmaster. 
It's not really related.  I mean, portmaster is judged on its own merit 
and that judgement is definitely not premature.

The PR stalled for a month and at its simplest was the removal of a 
single sentence.  It doesn't appear anybody was working on it despite it 
being solvable trivially.

The section of the conversation concerned the impression that portmaster 
is officially recommended, and that has to be stamped out per previous 
decision whether you agree with that decision or not, and I wanted to 
make sure you were 100% aware of that PR.

As an aside, the reason I have been reluctant to write new sections of 
handbook is because trivial PRs like this one aren't getting processed, 
nor another, more significant one that I wrote.  It's a natural reaction 
to stop attempting to contribute when previous contributions don't get 
"attention they deserve".

John

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