From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Feb 8 09:41:24 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE39BA9F4A6 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 09:41:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsdml@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B8F3D72 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 09:41:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsdml@marino.st) Received: from [192.168.1.143] (254.175.76.188.dynamic.jazztel.es [188.76.175.254]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3AB43BC7; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 03:41:22 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Removing documentation To: Peter Jeremy References: <56B754A8.3030605@marino.st> <56B7E6F2.9050906@marino.st> <20160208073409.GC63030@server.rulingia.com> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List From: John Marino X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56B862BF.5050807@marino.st> Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016 10:41:19 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160208073409.GC63030@server.rulingia.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 09:41:24 -0000 On 2/8/2016 8:34 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2016-Feb-08 01:53:06 +0100, John Marino wrote: > There's nothing in that statement that makes Synth "clearly superior" > to portmaster. It suggests that Synth might be an alternative to > poudriere. Synth is comparable to poudriere. It's faster, it is more user friend, it works out of the box (no need to set up jails and trees). However, the build mechanisms are very similar. > How does Synth handle ports that depend on themselves (Modula, Java and > Go, off the top of my head)? Does this mean that if I already have a > JDK installed, Synth is going to download one of the JDK packages anyway, > just so it can build a new JDK in a "clean" environment? It works the same as poudriere. It will download a new JDK, and not use an installed one to bootstrap. If the package has been previously downloaded, there's hardly any cost, otherwise yes, a CLEAN environment is the top priority. Dirty environments are asking for trouble and yes, it's inferior. If you disagree with that point, let's just agree to disagree. > And there are also a number of cases where a port's dependency can be > fulfilled by a number of unrelated ports - eg graphics/jpeg and > graphics/jpeg-turbo can both fulfil a dependency on libjpeg.so. How > does Synth decide which to use? It uses the port framework, which dictates all of this. One can influence it with customer variables in a make.conf fragment. It's basically identical to poudriere. John