from Chris H: > port-mgmt/poudriere gets the attention, and maintenance that it does, because > it was created, and is maintained by someone with a commit bit (bdrewery). > port-mgmt/synth was also created, and maintained by someone with a commit bit > (jmarino). > However, John's commit bit was taken away. While I'll not comment as to why, > nor elaborate on my personal stand/feelings regarding that action. I can say > that he has superseded synth with an application called Ravenports[1]. > I also attempted to take on ports-mgmt/portmaster early on in my endeavors > as a ports maintainer. However, that experience also didn't go well, and I'll > not bog this thread down with the details. My main intent for my reply, is > simply to indicate as to why history has been the way it has regarding the > other ports management utilities, and to indicate there is another possible > solution, that was not previously mentioned. That I thought you (and others?) > might be interested in. :) > [1] > https://github.com/jrmarino/Ravenports > https://github.com/jrmarino/ravenadm > https://github.com/jrmarino/ravensource
I was curious enough to take a look at those Github pages. Still too early for me to judge. I see the supported target systems are very limited, but there is a limit to what one person alone can do. I believe portmaster and portupgrade work or worked on all supported versions and architectures of FreeBSD, but synth is limited. Does poudriere work on all supported versions and architectures of FreeBSD? I looked in the Makefile and found no such limitation. I can still see possible use for portmaster in that something has to be used to build synth or poudriere from source. Tom _______________________________________________ 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"
