On 10/05/17 14:53, Chris H wrote:
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
Why don't you fork portmaster, call it eg portmaster-ch, make it a
port, hack away, and see what happens. If people start using it, you
win. We all win.
2ยข, whatever.
Russell
--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"
_______________________________________________
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"
