From owner-freebsd-ruby@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 25 03:02:19 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ruby@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20771106567F; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 03:02:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from milki@rescomp.berkeley.edu) Received: from hal.rescomp.berkeley.edu (hal.Rescomp.Berkeley.EDU [169.229.70.150]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D5F98FC16; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 03:02:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by hal.rescomp.berkeley.edu (Postfix, from userid 1070) id 1160E119D9F; Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:44:49 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:44:48 -0700 From: milki To: Steve Wills Message-ID: <20110725024448.GC36676@hal.rescomp.berkeley.edu> References: <4E2CD52C.8060701@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E2CD52C.8060701@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Eitan Adler , freebsd ports , ruby@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Time to mark portupgrade deprecated? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Ruby discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 03:02:19 -0000 On 22:30 Sun 24 Jul , Steve Wills wrote: > On 07/24/11 22:20, Eitan Adler wrote: > > At this point noone is maintaining portupgrade any more and a large > > number of PRs have been filed against it (see > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr-summary.cgi?text=portupgrade). No > > one has stepped up to do the work to fix these bugs so it is time to > > officially drop it. > > Personally, I agree it's time to drop it if no one is going to do the > work to maintain it, which at this point it seems clear is not going to > happen. I'd be happy to be proven wrong about that. > > So the question becomes, how do we go about doing it? First step would > be changing the handbook. Most UPDATING entries seem to include both > portupgrade and portmaster instructions these days, so that should be > covered. The next issue would be warning portupgrade users, perhaps by > marking the port DEPRECATED? I'd think a date a little longer than the > usual month would be needed before expiring. I would agree with this for the most part. However, when I recently fubarred my /usr/ports/packages when I accidently terminated in the middle of portmaster operations, I found the easiest way to recover was to use portupgrade (portmaster was complaining about missing packages and deleting/reinstalling/deinstalling/etc failed to fix this). I think its good to have alternate installers for situations like this since they have different strengths and weaknesses. Certainly documentation for portmaster needs to be added and promoted as a ports manager. That being said, I personally have had some vested interest in improving portupgrade and looked over the code when I submitted a patch before knowing no one was fixing it. In my naivete, maybe I could tackle portupgrade... -- milki milki@rescomp.berkeley.edu