Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 07:58:16 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org>, John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r407270 - head/ports-mgmt/portmaster Message-ID: <56A86A88.1070908@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <FFDB388E-185C-4A8C-A90A-C61F813B2856@adamw.org> References: <201601261123.u0QBNcvL091258@repo.freebsd.org> <FFDB388E-185C-4A8C-A90A-C61F813B2856@adamw.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/27/2016 2:29 AM, Adam Weinberger wrote: > John this doesn't feel like a decision you should be making > unilaterally. I agree wholeheartedly that the lack of contribution to > portmaster is troubling, but it still works exactly as intended for > anybody that doesn't use pkg to install binary packages, and is the > ONLY option for people who maintain single servers, instead of server > farms, and have no need to build ports just so they can install them > later. 1) You are aware that all the commit does is add a warning to portmaster right? So "the decision" is whether people should be warned that portmaster doesn't work needs to be a major group discussion. 2) no, portmaster does NOT work as intended. It is full of bugs and people are constantly reporting issues with it. 3) Only option? This is flat out false. In fact, in your scenario pkg(8) is sufficient. > synth is written in ada. I'm sorry but any port-management port that > requires over 20 dependencies before it even works is not > lightweight. I assume that dragonflybsd comes with gcc (and ada > support maybe), which is great and I'm super happy for you, but you > should not be scaring off new users (who will install what the > handbook tells them to install) just to promote a new program you > wrote. 4) pkg ins synth It pulls in one small package. It's noticibly faster than poudriere and blows portmaster out of the water (parallel building) Who said you have to build it from source? Where is that stated? I'm stating it now: It is not recommended that you build it. The officially build versions are absolutely fine. lightweight refers to performance, not the fact that it has dependencies. > portmaster is in the handbook all over the place. Rewrite all those > sections to demonstrate how to use synth instead and then I'll > support you deprecating portmaster. In the meantime, please revert > this. Fair point about handbook (and very troubling that it's there yet not considered official), but you know what deprecation mean right? It means you can still use it, indefinitely. People need to know that portmaster is NOT maintained and IS BUGGY. Why would you want to hide that fact from users? John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56A86A88.1070908>