Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 09:52:17 -0700 From: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> To: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bris.ac.uk> Cc: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org>, rollingbits@gmail.com, FreeBSD Ports ML <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: The future of portmaster Message-ID: <CAN6yY1tzcib=LAFqApBQXH6PcZWovZEaEb5cyfneSn0M9ekVww@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201705301415.v4UEFNJv049083@mech-as222.men.bris.ac.uk> References: <9FEDBFCE-27D1-432B-926B-7BF401AD7B19@adamw.org> <201705301415.v4UEFNJv049083@mech-as222.men.bris.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bris.ac.uk> wrote: > >From adamw@adamw.org Tue May 30 15:03:31 2017 > > > >The ports tree continues to evolve. Major new features are planned and in > the process of being implemented. These changes will break all the > port-building tools. > > oy vei > > >poudriere and synth are actively developed, so they will quickly support > the new changes. portmaster and portupgrade are no longer being actively > developed, so it is anticipated that they will stop working until somebody > fixes them (if at all). > > I last used poudriere a couple years back. > It is much more involved than portmaster > (obviously, these 2 tools are not doing the same job) > > >So no, portmaster isn't going away. But, there's no guarantee that it > will keep working. We strongly, strongly advise everyone to use poudriere > or synth to build their ports, and then plain old "pkg upgrade" to handle > updates. > > because my experience of poudriere was mixed, > I haven't used it at all on amd64. > pkg is great. And when occasionally I need > non-default options I use portmaster. > > > > >The vast majority of problems reported on this mailing list exist only in > portmaster/portupgrade, because they do not do clean builds. At this point, > portmaster should only be used by people with enough ports development > experience to understand and mitigate conflicts and various build errors. > > I agree that a dirty environement is mostly > the source of bad portmaster builds. > > However, to create the whole poudriere enviroment > to build a port a week, or maybe a month, seems > like an overkill. > > Yes, I know, it's a volunteer project, things > evolve, unless somebody steps in... > > If my recollection of poudriere is correct, > I'll need a separate ports tree? > And if I only need to build a single port > with custom settings, I'll have to start > every time from scratch? > And if I want to use this single port with > default settings with my other ports, I need > to make sure the 2 port trees are in sync. > > Sorry if I don't do poudeire justice, it's been a while... > > Anton > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > I really suggest that you look at synth. It also builds in a clean environment and provides all of the advantages of poudeire for use in a single-system (or multiple identical systems) case. No jails to set up. It builds a local pkg repository and you then use pkg on everything. I don't consider it a replacement for portmaster, but in most environments it does the same job and, since it builds in a clean environment, it avoids many of the issues with other tools. It is also very well documented, so it is not too hard to understand setup and use. -- Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAN6yY1tzcib=LAFqApBQXH6PcZWovZEaEb5cyfneSn0M9ekVww>