portmaster, portupgrade, etc

Steve Kargl sgk at troutmask.apl.washington.edu
Thu Oct 5 18:41:32 UTC 2017

On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 10:52:51AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote:

(courtesy long-line wrap)

> 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.

Nope. No conspiracy theory here.  But, the above is a good
method to deflect attention and blame.

I simply find it ironic/comical that someone dreamt up
flavours/subpackage for the ports collections with the 
knowledge that this will break all tools used to manage
ports, and portmgr which is charged with

   Discusses how that the way that the Ports Collection is
   implemented affects the above policies, and, in particular,
   such concepts as changes that require regression tests and
   sweeping changes.

(see https://www.freebsd.org/portmgr/) seems to have endorsed
a "sweeping change" with this outcome.  

Then that someone managed to convince developers of a single
ports management tool to implement support for flavours/subpackaged.
So, portmgr now is going ahead with a "sweeping change" at the expense
of all other ports management tool.  I have simply pointed out, portmgr
and contributors to that single ports manange tool have a significant
overlap.  Nope.  No conspiracy.  Just the truth.

So, Adam, if the poudriere developers had stated that poudriere
would not support flavors/subpackages would portmgr still wedge
the necessary infrastructure into the Makefiles and *.mk files?


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list