portmaster, portupgrade, etc
adamw at adamw.org
Thu Oct 5 16:52:59 UTC 2017
> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 10:28, Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:31:41AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote:
>>> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 9:25, Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote:
>>> Which brings me back to my i686 laptop with limited resources.
>>> If portmgr makes it impractical/impossible to easily install ports
>>> without a sledge hammer, then testing possible future patches to
>>> libm will simply skip i686 class hardware.
>> I'm not clear what role you think portmgr has in this. Portmgr
>> merely brings new features to the ports tree. Portmgr itself is
>> responsible for no build tool other than "make install".
>> I don't know how many times I need to keep saying this, but
>> portmgr is not killing off portmaster. There is simply nobody
>> developing portmaster anymore, and that is not portmgr's
>> responsibility. There ARE people developing poudriere, and
>> that is why poudriere continues to work with new ports tree features.
> I suppose it's a matter of semantics. If the Makefiles and *.mk
> files under /usr/ports are altered to allow subpackages and
> flavours to enhance pkg and poudriere, which will break portmaster
> further, then yes portmgr has made a decision to endorse a sledge
> hammer over simple tools.
> Mere users of the ports collection are not privy to discussions
> on a portmgr alias/mailinglist. A quick scan of the members of
> portmgr and contributors to poudriere show at least 4 common
> members. There are 8 people listed under portmgr. When decisions
> were being made on the introduction of subpackages/flavours into
> the ports collection, did the 4 common members recluse themselves
> from any formal or informal vote? If no, then there is certainly
> a conflict-of-interest in what is best for the ports collection
> versus what is best for poudriere.
> Yes, portmaster is currently unmaintained. Doug Barton left
> FreeBSD developement because he was continually brow beaten
> whenever he pointed out what he felt were (serious) flaws in
> FreeBSD and in the ports collection.
Not quite. It works in the other direction. Ports isn't designed for poudriere. Poudriere is designed for ports. 100% of the flavours development is happening in public. Anybody who wishes to work on portmaster can participate in the process too.
I think you have a misperception of the relationship between portmgr and poudriere. The coming flavours would break poudriere too, except there are people actively developing it.
You seem to be fully convinced in a conspiracy to destroy portmaster, and I don't get the impression that I'm going to change your mind. All I can tell you is that impending portmaster breakage is NOT by design, and is only happening because portmaster isn't actively developed anymore. If you'd like to believe in secret poudriere cabals and anti-portmaster conspiracies, that's up to you.
adamw at adamw.org
More information about the freebsd-ports