Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:52:51 -0600 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, linimon@lonesome.com, Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>, list1@gjunka.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portmaster, portupgrade, etc Message-ID: <E63C98F5-0416-4338-B560-8BCD1E23FC16@adamw.org> In-Reply-To: <20171005162853.GA96784@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <20171004232819.GA86102@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <201710050027.v950RBFT047711@gw.catspoiler.org> <20171005083558.GD95911@kib.kiev.ua> <20171005145116.GA96180@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20171005145941.GL95911@kib.kiev.ua> <20171005152520.GA96545@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <9B1E1C51-7D87-4DBC-8E7A-D9657BBAAC91@adamw.org> <20171005162853.GA96784@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 10:28, Steve Kargl = <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: >=20 > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:31:41AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 9:25, Steve Kargl = <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: >>> Which brings me back to my i686 laptop with limited resources. >>> If portmgr makes it impractical/impossible to easily install ports >>> without a sledge hammer, then testing possible future patches to=20 >>> libm will simply skip i686 class hardware. >>=20 >> I'm not clear what role you think portmgr has in this. Portmgr >> merely brings new features to the ports tree. Portmgr itself is >> responsible for no build tool other than "make install". >>=20 >> I don't know how many times I need to keep saying this, but >> portmgr is not killing off portmaster. There is simply nobody >> developing portmaster anymore, and that is not portmgr's >> responsibility. There ARE people developing poudriere, and >> that is why poudriere continues to work with new ports tree features. >>=20 >=20 > I suppose it's a matter of semantics. If the Makefiles and *.mk > files under /usr/ports are altered to allow subpackages and > flavours to enhance pkg and poudriere, which will break portmaster > further, then yes portmgr has made a decision to endorse a sledge > hammer over simple tools. >=20 > Mere users of the ports collection are not privy to discussions > on a portmgr alias/mailinglist. A quick scan of the members of=20 > portmgr and contributors to poudriere show at least 4 common > members. There are 8 people listed under portmgr. When decisions > were being made on the introduction of subpackages/flavours into > the ports collection, did the 4 common members recluse themselves > from any formal or informal vote? If no, then there is certainly > a conflict-of-interest in what is best for the ports collection > versus what is best for poudriere. >=20 > Yes, portmaster is currently unmaintained. Doug Barton left > FreeBSD developement because he was continually brow beaten > whenever he pointed out what he felt were (serious) flaws in > FreeBSD and in the ports collection. Not quite. It works in the other direction. Ports isn't designed for = poudriere. Poudriere is designed for ports. 100% of the flavours = development is happening in public. Anybody who wishes to work on = portmaster can participate in the process too. I think you have a misperception of the relationship between portmgr and = poudriere. The coming flavours would break poudriere too, except there = are people actively developing it. You seem to be fully convinced in a conspiracy to destroy portmaster, = and I don't get the impression that I'm going to change your mind. All I = can tell you is that impending portmaster breakage is NOT by design, and = is only happening because portmaster isn't actively developed anymore. = If you'd like to believe in secret poudriere cabals and anti-portmaster = conspiracies, that's up to you. # 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?E63C98F5-0416-4338-B560-8BCD1E23FC16>