portmaster, portupgrade, etc

[Chris H]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:52:51 -0600 Adam Weinberger <adamw at adamw.org> wrote

> > 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. 
>
> # Adam
While I have no intention to speak on Steve's behalf. I /would/ like
to speak in his humble defense;
over year ago, I attempted to become maintainer for
ports-mgmt/portmaster. I did so 1) because I /strongly/ believed in
it's value, and 2) it had been scorned for some time, and there were
/many/ discussions to have it removed. At the time I attempted the
request, it had not "officially" had a maintainer, and there was
serious talk as to /really/ having it removed from the ports tree.
bdrewery@ had been nursing it along. Conspiracy, or not. Grepping the
mailing list for portmaster /will/ show /many/ heated discussions
regarding it's removal -- this thread included. In any event, after
a few inquiries regarding taking maintainer for the port. My request
was ultimately declined. I was deemed unqualified. That judgement was
unfounded. :(
Granted, maintenance of portmaster is no small feat -- it's an
enormous scriptbal. But now some months later, I am maintainer for
~120 ports! perform a search for portmaster@ and see for yourself.
You can say what you will about some of those ports, but what it
/does/ show, is commitment, and long term commitment to boot!
I grow weary of the circular discussions surrounding portmaster. So
this is what I'd like to propose. It's maintenance is a bigger job for
anyone whom is not it's original author, for anyone that did not
grow it from scratch, and become so intimately familiar with it. So
perhaps a better solution might be for me to attempt again ask to
become maintainer. But this time, make it a group effort -- if for
no other reason, for my own sanity. But better; that it can/will be
more promptly addressed. IOW problems that arise, can more easily
be addressed when a group of individuals are involved with it's
maintenance.

Seem a reasonable request? If [found] so, I'll solicit for qualified
individuals to work with me on it in a new thread.

Thanks for your time, and consideration

--Chris
> 
> 
> -- 
> Adam Weinberger
> adamw at adamw.org
> https://www.adamw.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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"