Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 12:31:10 -0600 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: Per olof Ljungmark <peo@intersonic.se> Cc: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth] Message-ID: <9499F327-172A-4E04-B446-05EE5F08CC51@adamw.org> In-Reply-To: <d8ba380d-50e7-c110-d3e4-d12c718c7144@intersonic.se> References: <589B133C-0175-4DD2-8847-5A3E0E697B36@dsl-only.net> <20170530200629.GA10517@lonesome.com> <b0af0ae5-74fc-b932-5d4a-3697c5d3e666@intersonic.se> <20170530215306.GB11098@lonesome.com> <CAN6yY1stP9iFs5in-J4VGqLP88p_CEcykerDNePxm9490GiG4w@mail.gmail.com> <d8ba380d-50e7-c110-d3e4-d12c718c7144@intersonic.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 31 May, 2017, at 11:28, Per olof Ljungmark <peo@intersonic.se> = wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > On 2017-05-31 02:10, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com = <mailto:linimon@lonesome.com>> wrote: >> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:46:46PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark = wrote: >> > Hello, I have not followed this thread before but just wanted to = say >> > that I use portmaster extensively, it works for us and I would = miss >> > it if it went. Are there actually plans to retire it? >> To reiterate the status: >> * some extensive changes to the ports framework are coming; >> * these will require large changes to all the port upgrade = tools; >> * no one has stepped forwards to offer to do the work for = anything >> other than poudriere AFAIK. >> If no one does the work, at the time the large changes come, the >> other tools will break. >> People have been wanting subpackages (aka flavors) for many years; >> IIUC these are parts of the changes that are coming. >> Someone needs to step forwards and say "yes, I will do the work." >> mcl >> Since portmaster is still popult and since the only solutions that = looks to be available in the near term are pouderiere or raw make, = neither terribly viable for many, I will look into updating portmaster = to deal with 'flavors'. This looks fairly straight forward and I my have = the sh capability to manage it. (And then again, I am far from a great = shell person, so I may well be wrong.) I have looked at Doug's script = and it is pretty readable, but writing may require help. >> Can someone point me where to look for documentation on flavors? I = have poked around the wiki, but to no avail. Unless there is = documentation on what needs to be done, doing it will be hopeless and = waiting for the packaging system to updated means portmaster WILL be = broken for some period of time. >=20 > Let me just say that I would really, really appriciate if we could = keep such a simple tool. Why does it suit us? Because we have a limited = number of systems, and they are all different meaning that we custom = build for almost every task. Portmaster makes very easy to build what we = need on each host. Yes, it brakes sometimes but it is not that hard to = figure out how to get around. I want to reiterate that nobody is taking portmaster away from you. It = simply has not been actively developed for years. In all likelihood, = somebody will patch portmaster eventually. Poudriere is a safer, more = capable tool than portmaster, and it's better to migrate when there's no = immediate time pressure or breakage. The changes are not about to drop. Portmaster is not going to stop = working tomorrow. We are bringing it up now so that you have time to = consider migrating to poudriere or synth. If your system(s) and workflow = make poudriere a viable option, we want to encourage and help you to = migrate while there's no time pressure. Sending emails to this list about why you prefer portmaster doesn't = change the underlying problem, though: portmaster will only be long-term = viable if somebody actively develops it again. # Adam --=20 Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9499F327-172A-4E04-B446-05EE5F08CC51>