Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:57:16 -0600 From: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removal of Portmanager Message-ID: <50F187DC.2070804@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20130112120748.61c8e103@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <20130112120748.61c8e103@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) ------enig2MBACDIMQAQJMUKGEFRGW Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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." >=20 > These seem more like bogus excuses than reasons. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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, while the ports framework and goals have moved on. Yes pkgng is not default today, but it will be someday, and pkg_install support will be removed. At that time portmanager will stop working completely. Better to migrate now to another tool. When pkgng does become default, you won't care as much as the tool will just work the same as before. 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. If someone wants to step up and maintain and contribute to portmanager please do; we can re-add it at any time. Ps. This is coming from the person who got involved with FreeBSD when I was saddened to see portupgrade deprecated. Now it is maintained and properly handling various ports features. Regards, Bryan Drewery ------enig2MBACDIMQAQJMUKGEFRGW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQ8YfcAAoJEG54KsA8mwz55ogP/2z3RwLw7cTvckcBgIXZGPZv MkwVT2Bn0dax6WcoTd1VjLcOMi0SeAwfIYbJ/53Qe+EYmmnI6ZYr9dgJyISEpAaw tD9fZymh7SHJqf5O3fiyEr0NNbx4Dz19IPdSxF/QPYF5eBb7+4+e6QZlX40SgA1r MrcfkfBt4doiMFdnDfwUsSDCuNEWktnMwhWBkaib6w1gESIb/dqN/bxk4091L7Ut /KmjDrCbF680oPbt8fb8g+NPAPgFxnoLWAKsyg8W7qhNKjrygNl9HC2qwBSwoeSJ hs/5T8wzgjRaulN1etU+jy1DTaGT52uHE+PIEqVUl3pIAANngzUrkBh9YFPsXune +9rjtSpyZmHa7mLaYJUw+lJLQtIdx5J7+k8P+x3du1ukXH1nZNjZv2DpV9qdOUwW ICasx3M/HD/Ve5q79OyY7G0pgLY0I70H3DY0XWR2YxkQhfDR1+H/9nmFWG+gjJiy +A3RkcBw6iFHApjMJ6DUzOWUH69GTYg3i4b69rHyKcGNcMjXAs/Fh+nSJfqQm5nW xi+cilt1s9Yqtfyh9YeeAx2sQRNbAnM8szOhEDYgilHqUWA0wjwRM/ci1z6LV1Gg In53DMCcz1id7OQKE0t/Z0cIYugM2F7Xe+W5hzLLvcv+jR1bgE/2QQcQrEujM0dv 1rMP6rzN9pXIHhBzsguy =Lbv/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------enig2MBACDIMQAQJMUKGEFRGW--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50F187DC.2070804>