On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 16:13:36 -0600 Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org> wrote
> > On 5 Oct, 2017, at 15:53, Chris H <bsd-li...@bsdforge.com> 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. :( > > I remember that. I have to admit, I was pretty shocked by it as well. > > > 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 > > Please reach out to tz first, Will do. > as he currently maintains the port. Portmaster > desperately needs an active developer, and even better if there's a team > involved (single responsibility is always a bad long-term plan). > > Let me know what you need. I'll give you whatever support I can. > That's really big of you to say. Thanks Adam. You're a saint! It's going to take some planning, and organization. But I'm on it. Thanks again. > # Adam --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"