Status of portupgrade and portmaster?

[Chris H]

On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 10:28:49 +0100 Matt Smith <matt.xtaz at gmail.com> wrote

> On Oct 02 09:07, Carmel NY wrote:
> >On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 23:49:14 +0100, Matthew Seaman stated:
> >
> >>On 01/10/2017 11:34, Carmel NY wrote:
> >>> 1. Does it determine out-of-date update packages automatically or does
> >>> the user have to determine that what is out-of-date and feed them to
> >>> poudriere manually and in the proper order?
> >>
> >>Automatic.
> >>
> >>> 2. From what I have read, the user is required to install each package
> >>> manually. Is that correct?
> >>
> >>Poudriere builds a repository.  You then have to type 'pkg upgrade' or
> >>'pkg install foo' to update your live system.  Most people do not find
> >>this particularly taxing.
> >
> >From the "pkg-descr" file:
> >
> >poudriere is a tool primarily designed to test package production on
> >FreeBSD. However, most people will find it useful to bulk build ports
> >for FreeBSD.
> >
> >While it will undoubtedly work, it is still more complex than the average
> >desktop user requirers. Synth fits the bill nicely by being, for the most
> >part, easy to understand and run. I am already on my forth "ports
> >maintenance" program having used portmanager, portmaster, portupgrade and
> >now synth. At this point, I would almost rather switch to a new OS before
> >abandoning synth for something that IMHO is just overkill for the average
> >user. 
> >Just my 2¢.
> >
> 
> Of course if you did move to a different OS then the chances are you 
> would be using a binary package repository and not compiling any 
> software from source. So you wouldn't have any choice over the options 
> that these packages were built with.
> 
> If you are happy enough to do this then you may as well just abandon 
> building ports on FreeBSD anyway and just use the pkg tool from the 
> official FreeBSD repository. This is the easiest option surely.
> 
> For what it's worth I've used both synth and poudriere and whilst 
> poudriere is slightly heavier to use because of the requirement to 
> create a build jail first, once that step has been done it's pretty much 
> identical to using synth really.
> 
> My workflow is simply this:
> 
> poudriere ports -u (update the ports tree)
> poudriere bulk -j 11 -f pkglist (check for any updates and build any 
> packages listed in the pkglist file)
> pkg upgrade (upgrade any upgraded packages)
> 
> That's it. The same workflow on synth is:
> svn up /usr/ports
> synth build pkglist
> pkg upgrade
> 
> Pretty similar if you ask me. OK you could use synth upgrade-system and 
> do it in one command rather than two but then you're building everything 
> on the host system and not a specific list. Also I like the extra pkg 
> stage, it gives me a chance to see what pkg is about to do and abort it 
> if it wants to do something insane.
I think you really made the point here, Matt;
IMHO It's really a Chocolate vs Vanilla, Broccoli vs Corn situation.
Both are fine; but not everyone is willing to have/choose either, and
someone(TM) is going to have to step up, and ensure that *both* are
available, before both parties are going to be satisfied/happy. :)

Just the way I see it (my .02¢)

So. Has John paid the necessary penance yet? ;) ;)

--Chris
> 
> -- 
> Matt
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"