portmaster, portupgrade, etc
list1 at gjunka.com
Thu Oct 5 22:33:43 UTC 2017
On 05/10/2017 22:27, Chris H wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 22:05:05 +0000 Grzegorz Junka <list1 at gjunka.com> wrote
>> On 05/10/2017 21:53, 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>
>>>>> 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
>> What does it mean in practical terms? A list of signatories under your
>> candidature and a recommendation letter? Endorsements sent to a
>> particular email?
>> I don't quite understand why would anybody want to decline a request to
>> maintain a port that is unmaintained otherwise? Are they expecting
>> better candidatures? I would understand if they had 10 proposals to
>> maintain the same port, but not if there is just one? But I am not good
>> at politics so maybe I am missing something.
> I'm afraid I'm not really following you. What I'm saying, is that I
> am seeking to be Maintainer for ports-mgmt/portmaster.
> I am saying that it is an especially difficult task to perform --
> especially in light of 1) it isn't even up-to-date for the /current/
> state of the ports tree, and 2) isn't [yet] ready for Flavo[u]rs, 3)
> let alone sub-packages. So I would feel more inclined to make the
> Maintenance effort, a /team/ effort. So that those whom currently
> depend on it, and continue to enjoy it's use.
> I hope this helps clear my intentions up. :)
I do get it now, sorry for the confusion. But in that case I frankly
don't think you should expect much help ;-| Developers who would be able
to help you maintain the port most likely are already happily using
More information about the freebsd-ports