portmaster, portupgrade, etc

[Chris H]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 16:13:36 -0600 Adam Weinberger <adamw at adamw.org> wrote

> > On 5 Oct, 2017, at 15:53, Chris H <bsd-lists at bsdforge.com> 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. :(
> 
> I remember that. I have to admit, I was pretty shocked by it as well.
> 
> > 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
> 
> Please reach out to tz first,
Will do.
> as he currently maintains the port. Portmaster
> desperately needs an active developer, and even better if there's a team
> involved (single responsibility is always a bad long-term plan). 
>
> Let me know what you need. I'll give you whatever support I can.
> 
That's really big of you to say. Thanks Adam. You're a saint!
It's going to take some planning, and organization. But I'm on it.

Thanks again.
> # Adam

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