On 08.05.25 02:05, John W wrote:
I know that using binary packages is popular these days, and that poudriere
exists, too. But I still generally have been managing my ports via 'make
install' and/or portmaster (which uses the same, under the hood).
But I had a strange interaction in a bug report, recently [1], which makes me
wonder: is this old style of managing ports no longer well-supported?
Quote from that link from bofh@:
And to be frank for end users; ports is not the way to go. It's
binary pkgs or poudriere for your custom builds. If you want to try
ports/portmaster/portupgrade seek help from forums or mailing lists not
as a bug report.
As far as I am able to tell, the behavior I described *is* a bug with
that port. But the fact that it manifests via 'make config' and soforth
seemed to be a reason for it to not be considered a bug?
As I understand it, bofh@ is a senior FreeBSD person, so presumably they
know more about it than I do. But I could not find a way to make sense
of their response without the impression that make-based workflows are
not supported, these days.
Just curious if anyone else has some high-level insights on this
situation. I've been using 'make install' for like 15+ years and it
seems weird to get this sort of response from ports maintainers.
Well, there's a difference to consider. When you are building a port
directly it inherits your environment, your installed packages and so
on. You can't rely on the outcome being exactly the same as on any other
system. Dependency loops? - Ok, fine. Random shared object picked up
from backup location? - Yeah, why not. Issues translating symbols for
some encodings? - I saw that too. Random sigcrashes due to linking
stuff? - Can happen anytime.
Generally if you want your system to run stable synth/poudriere is a way
to go. Synth might be even easier to set up. Though when I'm updating
ports to new versions, testing something or just walking around I'm
still using direct builds.
--
Sphinx of black quartz judge my vow.
