Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 16:02:13 +0000 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removal of Portmanager Message-ID: <20130113160213.6f10a863@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <50F187DC.2070804@FreeBSD.org> References: <20130112120748.61c8e103@gumby.homeunix.com> <50F187DC.2070804@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:57:16 -0600 Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 1/12/2013 6:07 AM, RW wrote: > > "Does not support modern ports features such as MOVED, is lacking > > upstream and active contributions, and does not support pkgng. > > Consider using ports-mgmt/portmaster, ports-mgmt/portupgrade or > > pkgng." > > > > These seem more like bogus excuses than reasons. > > > > Portmanager doesn't need MOVED, and the author chose not to support > > it. There's no compelling reason for portmanager users to switch to > > pkgng which may well be the reason no-one has done anything. > > > > The logical time to remove portmanager is when there are no > > supported releases with support for the old package tools - if it's > > not been patched to support pkgng by then. > > I do agree that harmless working ports should remain left untouched. > However, portmanager has lacked contributions for years now, I submitted a bug-fix a few years ago when I found a bug, I haven't submitted any more because I didn't notice any more. Am I to understand that we only permit ports to remain in the tree if they have a minimum level of incorrectness? >while the ports framework and goals have moved on. This is something that people say but never cite any sensible examples. The changes seem to me to be pretty transparent. For me portmanager works better than on the day development ceased. All the problems I've had with updates are traceable to the port system itself. > The other reasons listed do matter as it lessens the overall user > experience of FreeBSD ports, if the tool you are using doesn't > actually utilize the framework fully or correctly. How exactly does portmanager underutilise the ports framework? The only example that's been adduced is MOVED, and that was a deliberate design decision that's as valid now as ever. The use of package files is incompatible with portmanager's design and philosophy. If you want to use package files you wont want portmanager and vice versa, pkgng is purely needed to replace the existing functionality - it provides no benefit. To me portmaster and portupgrade's limitations lessen the "overall user experience" more than portmanager's. It's the only one of the three designed to minimise human effort - the other two require much more nursemaiding. We now only have the choice of two tools that place more value on CPU time than my time, and I regard that as a major loss. > Ps. This is coming from the person who got involved with FreeBSD when > I was saddened to see portupgrade deprecated. At least you had the luxury of realising it was deprecated. FreeBSD doesn't exactly announce deprecation "on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of The Leopard" but it's pretty close. We really need a way of flagging this up for installed packages.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130113160213.6f10a863>