Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 21:17:35 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> To: Royce Williams <royce@tycho.org> Cc: lev@freebsd.org, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Removing documentation Message-ID: <56BCEC5F.4020007@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <CA%2BE3k93iYs1p5Je-AKwJ7pVLdzYgSXWqb4P0XoD0oTJhrkt==Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <56B754A8.3030605@marino.st> <56BCE01D.4010701@FreeBSD.org> <56BCE218.40403@marino.st> <CA%2BE3k93iYs1p5Je-AKwJ7pVLdzYgSXWqb4P0XoD0oTJhrkt==Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2/11/2016 9:08 PM, Royce Williams wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:33 AM, John Marino <freebsdml@marino.st> wrote: >> >> On 2/11/2016 8:25 PM, Lev Serebryakov wrote: >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA512 >>> >>> On 07.02.2016 17:28, John Marino wrote: >>> >>>> ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing >>>> portmaster can do that Synth can't. (honestly) >>> Be installed FROM PORTS without all this build-one-more-gcc stuff. >>> Ada? For *port*management* tool? Are you joking? >> >> Let me guess. You've spent actually 0.0 nanoseconds preparing on the >> subject before providing this enlightened take for the list. > > > Having read the entire thread, separate from the relative merits of > Synth, the core of Lev's incredulity isn't that off the mark. > > On the face of it, Synth requiring ncurses seems reasonable ... but > its Ada dependency is a bit of a mild POLA violation. > > Don't get me wrong -- I actually think Ada is pretty cool, and Lev > could have been nicer about it ;), but he's essentially right. > > People's instincts are that software management is core functionality, > and should have few unusual dependencies. > > My earlier side-thread point stands. FreeBSD software management is > fragmented. Until that is resolved, a lot of time and effort will be > wasted treating the symptoms. Actually, you missed the fact that synth (nor poudriere) doesnt re-invent anything. Both are tightly integrated with pkg(8). You spoke of both as if they were similar to portupgrade. The "wrapper situation" that you proposed is already here. So the whole "fragmented" thing is not really true. Synth is a binary. There's no POLA there. There's no requirement to build from ports, that's an unsubstanciated invention. Notice that not a single person could defend that position after a challenge. There's no technical basis for it; it's just emotional. In a straight fly-off against any of the tools, Synth wins hands down with any objective measurement. Poudriere is slightly more bulletproof and more appropriate for a cluster (as it was targetted at) but for average user Synth is better suited. It's a concurrent builder. Ada is a concurrent language. How is its suitability even a debate? John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56BCEC5F.4020007>