> > And as portsnap user I have a question: Do they planning deprecation of
> > portmaster too? > No, I'm actively working on portmaster and have rewritten it from > scratch for better performance (and additional features, e.g. building > in a clean chroot jail, similar to synth or poudriere). > I have been using that version for more than one year, but the > functionality is not complete, yet. > On a test system with > 2200 installed ports it takes less than 10 > seconds to identify the ~600 out-of-date ports (that I keep in this > state for testing of the upgrade strategy function), which is more > than 30 times faster than the same operation with the "official" > portmaster. > Until completion of that version, I'll continue to maintain and > update the current portmaster port ... > Regards, STefan Question about the relation of portsnap and portmaster reminds me of Java and Javascript, or potato and sweet potato (not closely related). Since my question is about a new portmaster, I rename the subject to "portmaster" or "portmaster new development", rather than hijack the "portsnap" thread. Which portmaster do I get if I build and install what is currently in the ports tree? amelia2# ls -l ports-mgmt/portmaster total 16 -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 1479 Dec 27 02:01 Makefile -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 184 Feb 28 2018 distinfo drwxr-xr-x 2 root wheel 512 Dec 27 02:01 files -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 1189 May 6 2019 pkg-descr from a fresh svn up of the ports tree. An improved portmaster arouses my interest. Maybe modify the name so it can be added to the ports tree and coexist with the "official" portmaster. Desired features/options would be to keep going rather than stop when one port fails to build, and the ability to install build dependencies, which may be useful for building other software. With synth, I had a difficult time getting everything that was built to install, some packages like bison are needed in building other software. How is poudriere in that regard? I never used poudriere, have been intimidated by not wanting to use zfs or dialog4ports, or such an elaborate setup just to update one or a few ports. Gentoo Linux with portage has "--with-bdeps=y" which installs build dependencies when desired. I found that poudriere uses dialog4ports; I much prefer to save options in a file such as Gentoo Linux does with make.conf and (NetBSD) pkgsrc does with mk.conf . I once got a royal mess of circular/jumbled dependencies with dialog4ports; cleaning was a major nuisance, nothing simple like editing /etc/mk.conf or /etc/make.conf . I would like to be free of dialog4ports; the older dialog was worse and messed up my screen. 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"
