On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:52:51 -0600 Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org> wrote
> > On 5 Oct, 2017, at 10:28, Steve Kargl <s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> > > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:31:41AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: > >>> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 9:25, Steve Kargl <s...@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 > >>> libm will simply skip i686 class hardware. > >> > >> 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". > >> > >> 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. > >> > > > > 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. > > > > Mere users of the ports collection are not privy to discussions > > on a portmgr alias/mailinglist. A quick scan of the members of > > 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. > > > > 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 While I have no intention to speak on Steve's behalf. I /would/ like to speak in his humble defense; over year ago, I attempted to become maintainer for ports-mgmt/portmaster. I did so 1) because I /strongly/ believed in it's value, and 2) it had been scorned for some time, and there were /many/ discussions to have it removed. At the time I attempted the request, it had not "officially" had a maintainer, and there was serious talk as to /really/ having it removed from the ports tree. bdrewery@ had been nursing it along. Conspiracy, or not. Grepping the mailing list for portmaster /will/ show /many/ heated discussions regarding it's removal -- this thread included. In any event, after a few inquiries regarding taking maintainer for the port. My request was ultimately declined. I was deemed unqualified. That judgement was unfounded. :( Granted, maintenance of portmaster is no small feat -- it's an enormous scriptbal. But now some months later, I am maintainer for ~120 ports! perform a search for portmaster@ and see for yourself. You can say what you will about some of those ports, but what it /does/ show, is commitment, and long term commitment to boot! I grow weary of the circular discussions surrounding portmaster. So this is what I'd like to propose. It's maintenance is a bigger job for anyone whom is not it's original author, for anyone that did not grow it from scratch, and become so intimately familiar with it. So perhaps a better solution might be for me to attempt again ask to become maintainer. But this time, make it a group effort -- if for no other reason, for my own sanity. But better; that it can/will be more promptly addressed. IOW problems that arise, can more easily be addressed when a group of individuals are involved with it's maintenance. Seem a reasonable request? If [found] so, I'll solicit for qualified individuals to work with me on it in a new thread. Thanks for your time, and consideration --Chris > > > -- > Adam Weinberger > ad...@adamw.org > https://www.adamw.org > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"