portmaster, portupgrade, etc

Russell L. Carter rcarter at pinyon.org
Thu Oct 5 22:19:23 UTC 2017

On 10/05/17 14:53, Chris H wrote:
> 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

Why don't you fork portmaster, call it eg portmaster-ch, make it a
port, hack away, and see what happens.  If people start using it, you
win.  We all win.

2¢, whatever.


> --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"
> _______________________________________________
> 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"

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list