Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 16:22:35 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removal of Portmanager Message-ID: <CADLo839SnMTf7dj8zSbRTJz4gVYp_LfhP7ZNw8ywCpe5yLwXBQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130113160213.6f10a863@gumby.homeunix.com> References: <20130112120748.61c8e103@gumby.homeunix.com> <50F187DC.2070804@FreeBSD.org> <20130113160213.6f10a863@gumby.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 13 Jan 2013 16:02, "RW" <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:57:16 -0600 > Bryan Drewery wrote: > > > 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." > > > > > > These seem more like bogus excuses than reasons. > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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, > > I submitted a bug-fix a few years ago when I found a bug, I haven't > submitted any more because I didn't notice any more. Am I to understand > that we only permit ports to remain in the tree if they have a minimum > level of incorrectness? > > >while the ports framework and goals have moved on. > > This is something that people say but never cite any sensible examples. > The changes seem to me to be pretty transparent. For me portmanager > works better than on the day development ceased. All the problems I've > had with updates are traceable to the port system itself. > > > > 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. > > How exactly does portmanager underutilise the ports framework? The only > example that's been adduced is MOVED, and that was a deliberate design > decision that's as valid now as ever. > > The use of package files is incompatible with portmanager's design and > philosophy. If you want to use package files you wont want portmanager > and vice versa, pkgng is purely needed to replace the existing > functionality - it provides no benefit. Pkgng is also part of the ports tree nowadays, and portmanager must support it. The old pkg_install suite will be removed soon. Portmanager needs fixing! > To me portmaster and portupgrade's limitations lessen the "overall user > experience" more than portmanager's. It's the only one of the three > designed to minimise human effort - the other two require much more > nursemaiding. We now only have the choice of two tools that place more > value on CPU time than my time, and I regard that as a major loss. > > > Ps. This is coming from the person who got involved with FreeBSD when > > I was saddened to see portupgrade deprecated. > > At least you had the luxury of realising it was deprecated. FreeBSD > doesn't exactly announce deprecation "on display in the bottom of a > locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the > door saying Beware of The Leopard" but it's pretty close. That's the Planning Department! > We really need a way of flagging this up for installed packages. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo839SnMTf7dj8zSbRTJz4gVYp_LfhP7ZNw8ywCpe5yLwXBQ>