Re: Removal of Portmanager
Mark wrote: On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:51:39AM +, RW wrote: Reports are sent to ports@ every 2 weeks. And I wonder how many people read carefully through all 478 entries. And your suggestion is ... ? Try ports/ports-mgmt/portupdate-scan. b. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
Am 16.01.2013 09:48, schrieb b.f.: Mark wrote: On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:51:39AM +, RW wrote: Reports are sent to ports@ every 2 weeks. And I wonder how many people read carefully through all 478 entries. And your suggestion is ... ? Try ports/ports-mgmt/portupdate-scan. I just wanted to give it a try, but it does not seem to support PKGNG. (I'll have a look to check whether that's easy to fix ...) Regards, STefan ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 10:38:50AM +0100, Stefan Esser wrote: Am 16.01.2013 09:48, schrieb b.f.: Mark wrote: Try ports/ports-mgmt/portupdate-scan. I just wanted to give it a try, but it does not seem to support PKGNG. (I'll have a look to check whether that's easy to fix ...) I was under the impression that pkgng has similar functionality built-in (pkg updating), and so portupdate-scan would become obsolete once pkgng becomes standard. Do you think there's still a need for portupdate-scan even with pkgng? I'd be happy to look at fixing this, if I thought there was a point to it. Alex ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 08:48:37AM +, b.f. wrote: Mark wrote: On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:51:39AM +, RW wrote: Reports are sent to ports@ every 2 weeks. And I wonder how many people read carefully through all 478 entries. And your suggestion is ... ? Try ports/ports-mgmt/portupdate-scan. portupdate-scan displays pertinent entries from /usr/ports/UPDATING. How does that help you digest long lists posted on a mailing list? Alex ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 08:48:37AM +, b.f. wrote: Mark wrote: On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:51:39AM +, RW wrote: Reports are sent to ports@ every 2 weeks. And I wonder how many people read carefully through all 478 entries. And your suggestion is ... ? Try ports/ports-mgmt/portupdate-scan. portupdate-scan displays pertinent entries from /usr/ports/UPDATING. How does that help you digest long lists posted on a mailing list? Obviously, it can't: I misunderstood the original complaint. If portupdate-scan is parsing MOVED and UPDATING, it can help notify users of port removals before they update their packages, but not before the ports are removed. If users have an up-to-date ports tree in PORTSDIR, they can use something simple like: pkg_info -qoa | xargs -I @ grep -le EXPIRATION_DATE $PORTSDIR/@/Makefile to find which of their installed packages are likely to be removed, with obvious variations to list all DEPRECATED ports, etc. If they don't have a ports tree, they can use: http://portsmon.freebsd.org/portsconcordanceforexpiring.py b. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
14.01.2013 12:56, Matthew Seaman пишет: On 14/01/2013 08:43, Boris Samorodov wrote: 13.01.2013 20:22, Chris Rees пишет: Pkgng is also part of the ports tree nowadays, and portmanager must support it. The old pkg_install suite will be removed soon. Portmanager needs fixing! That threaten me a bit. Will pkg_install be removed soon from all supported versions? pkg_tools are going to be around for at least the duration of 8.3-RELEASE which comes out of support some time in April 2014 -- see the road map here: https://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng/CharterAndRoadMap#Road_Map However the plan is that pkgng should become the default packaging system for all releases from now on. It's already the default in 10.x, and at some point relatively soon it should become the default in stable/8 and stable/9. (Delayed because of the current lack of package building systems, inter-alia) OK, relatively soon in pair with when server infrastructure is ready is much better that just soon. All this means is that you will have to put stuff in /etc/make.conf in order to use pkg_tools, rather than the situation now, where you have to put stuff in /etc/make.conf in order to use pkgng. And not will be removed but the default will be changed. What a relief! ;-) Thanks Matthew, and sorry Chris for me being so paranoid. -- WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam) FreeBSD Committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On 15 Jan 2013 12:31, Boris Samorodov b...@passap.ru wrote: 14.01.2013 12:56, Matthew Seaman пишет: On 14/01/2013 08:43, Boris Samorodov wrote: 13.01.2013 20:22, Chris Rees пишет: Pkgng is also part of the ports tree nowadays, and portmanager must support it. The old pkg_install suite will be removed soon. Portmanager needs fixing! That threaten me a bit. Will pkg_install be removed soon from all supported versions? pkg_tools are going to be around for at least the duration of 8.3-RELEASE which comes out of support some time in April 2014 -- see the road map here: https://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng/CharterAndRoadMap#Road_Map However the plan is that pkgng should become the default packaging system for all releases from now on. It's already the default in 10.x, and at some point relatively soon it should become the default in stable/8 and stable/9. (Delayed because of the current lack of package building systems, inter-alia) OK, relatively soon in pair with when server infrastructure is ready is much better that just soon. All this means is that you will have to put stuff in /etc/make.conf in order to use pkg_tools, rather than the situation now, where you have to put stuff in /etc/make.conf in order to use pkgng. And not will be removed but the default will be changed. What a relief! ;-) Thanks Matthew, and sorry Chris for me being so paranoid. I'm sorry for not being specific :) Chris ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 09:57:16AM -0600, Bryan Drewery wrote: Yes pkgng is not default today, but it will be someday IIUC pkgng is default on -CURRENT. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 04:02:13PM +, RW wrote: FreeBSD doesn't exactly announce deprecation on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of The Leopard but it's pretty close. See, e.g., http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201301070830.r078URib068877 Reports are sent to ports@ every 2 weeks. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On 1/15/2013 5:53 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 09:57:16AM -0600, Bryan Drewery wrote: Yes pkgng is not default today, but it will be someday IIUC pkgng is default on -CURRENT. mcl Ah yes, thank you for reminding me. It was one of the motivators here; ensuring all popular port tools supported ports on CURRENT. -- Regards, Bryan Drewery bdrewery@freenode/EFNet signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:56:50 -0600 Mark Linimon wrote: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 04:02:13PM +, RW wrote: FreeBSD doesn't exactly announce deprecation on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of The Leopard but it's pretty close. See, e.g., http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201301070830.r078URib068877 Reports are sent to ports@ every 2 weeks. And I wonder how many people read carefully through all 478 entries. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On 01/15/13 19:51, RW wrote: On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:56:50 -0600 Mark Linimon wrote: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 04:02:13PM +, RW wrote: FreeBSD doesn't exactly announce deprecation on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of The Leopard but it's pretty close. See, e.g., http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201301070830.r078URib068877 Reports are sent to ports@ every 2 weeks. And I wonder how many people read carefully through all 478 entries. ctrl+f in firefox and type in your search string. Not sure about other browsers, may have something similar, though. -- Yours in Christ, Joseph A Nagy Jr Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge, But he who hates correction is stupid. -- Proverbs 12:1 Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. Original content CopyFree (F) under the OWL http://owl.apotheon.org ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 01:51:39 + RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:56:50 -0600 Mark Linimon wrote: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 04:02:13PM +, RW wrote: FreeBSD doesn't exactly announce deprecation on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of The Leopard but it's pretty close. See, e.g., http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201301070830.r078URib068877 Reports are sent to ports@ every 2 weeks. And I wonder how many people read carefully through all 478 entries. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org I actually at least glance at it to make sure none of the less popular ports I'm using might be affected. Not sure if this makes me a more interesting person or not ;) Anyway, if this is a major concern this might make an interesting periodic script - similar to portaudit. So it could check nightly which of the installed packages are scheduled to be removed from the ports tree in the near future. I certainly won't spend any time on this, but maybe someone out there considers this useful enough to write it?! -- Michael Gmelin ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:51:39AM +, RW wrote: Reports are sent to ports@ every 2 weeks. And I wonder how many people read carefully through all 478 entries. And your suggestion is ... ? mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
13.01.2013 20:22, Chris Rees пишет: Pkgng is also part of the ports tree nowadays, and portmanager must support it. The old pkg_install suite will be removed soon. Portmanager needs fixing! That threaten me a bit. Will pkg_install be removed soon from all supported versions? -- WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam) FreeBSD Committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On 14/01/2013 08:43, Boris Samorodov wrote: 13.01.2013 20:22, Chris Rees пишет: Pkgng is also part of the ports tree nowadays, and portmanager must support it. The old pkg_install suite will be removed soon. Portmanager needs fixing! That threaten me a bit. Will pkg_install be removed soon from all supported versions? pkg_tools are going to be around for at least the duration of 8.3-RELEASE which comes out of support some time in April 2014 -- see the road map here: https://wiki.freebsd.org/pkgng/CharterAndRoadMap#Road_Map However the plan is that pkgng should become the default packaging system for all releases from now on. It's already the default in 10.x, and at some point relatively soon it should become the default in stable/8 and stable/9. (Delayed because of the current lack of package building systems, inter-alia) All this means is that you will have to put stuff in /etc/make.conf in order to use pkg_tools, rather than the situation now, where you have to put stuff in /etc/make.conf in order to use pkgng. Cheers, Matthew ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 18:11:18 +1100 Peter Jeremy wrote: On 2013-Jan-13 19:25:42 +, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote: Aside from pkgng what changes do do you think it needs? Without pkgng support, how will portmanager interrogate the system to determine what ports are installed and/or need updating? I'm not saying it shouldn't be deleted when it doesn't work, I'm saying that its removal is far too early. It's deprecation and removal should have been aligned with the package tools so that people could see it coming. If you deliberately set out to minimise the chances of portmanager's survival this is the optimal way of doing it. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:57:16 -0600 Bryan Drewery wrote: On 1/12/2013 6:07 AM, RW wrote: Does not support modern ports features such as MOVED, is lacking upstream and active contributions, and does not support pkgng. Consider using ports-mgmt/portmaster, ports-mgmt/portupgrade or pkgng. These seem more like bogus excuses than reasons. Portmanager doesn't need MOVED, and the author chose not to support it. There's no compelling reason for portmanager users to switch to pkgng which may well be the reason no-one has done anything. The logical time to remove portmanager is when there are no supported releases with support for the old package tools - if it's not been patched to support pkgng by then. I do agree that harmless working ports should remain left untouched. However, portmanager has lacked contributions for years now, I submitted a bug-fix a few years ago when I found a bug, I haven't submitted any more because I didn't notice any more. Am I to understand that we only permit ports to remain in the tree if they have a minimum level of incorrectness? while the ports framework and goals have moved on. This is something that people say but never cite any sensible examples. The changes seem to me to be pretty transparent. For me portmanager works better than on the day development ceased. All the problems I've had with updates are traceable to the port system itself. The other reasons listed do matter as it lessens the overall user experience of FreeBSD ports, if the tool you are using doesn't actually utilize the framework fully or correctly. How exactly does portmanager underutilise the ports framework? The only example that's been adduced is MOVED, and that was a deliberate design decision that's as valid now as ever. The use of package files is incompatible with portmanager's design and philosophy. If you want to use package files you wont want portmanager and vice versa, pkgng is purely needed to replace the existing functionality - it provides no benefit. To me portmaster and portupgrade's limitations lessen the overall user experience more than portmanager's. It's the only one of the three designed to minimise human effort - the other two require much more nursemaiding. We now only have the choice of two tools that place more value on CPU time than my time, and I regard that as a major loss. Ps. This is coming from the person who got involved with FreeBSD when I was saddened to see portupgrade deprecated. At least you had the luxury of realising it was deprecated. FreeBSD doesn't exactly announce deprecation on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of The Leopard but it's pretty close. We really need a way of flagging this up for installed packages. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
Am 13.01.2013 17:02, schrieb RW: On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:57:16 -0600 Bryan Drewery wrote: On 1/12/2013 6:07 AM, RW wrote: Does not support modern ports features such as MOVED, is lacking upstream and active contributions, and does not support pkgng. Consider using ports-mgmt/portmaster, ports-mgmt/portupgrade or pkgng. These seem more like bogus excuses than reasons. Portmanager doesn't need MOVED, and the author chose not to support it. There's no compelling reason for portmanager users to switch to pkgng which may well be the reason no-one has done anything. The logical time to remove portmanager is when there are no supported releases with support for the old package tools - if it's not been patched to support pkgng by then. I do agree that harmless working ports should remain left untouched. However, portmanager has lacked contributions for years now, I submitted a bug-fix a few years ago when I found a bug, I haven't submitted any more because I didn't notice any more. Am I to understand that we only permit ports to remain in the tree if they have a minimum level of incorrectness? I am very much in support of that view. No half-baked software please. Everyone is free to step up to maintain portmanager - or find (pay) someone who does - and bring it up to speed with the recent changes to the framework, rather than endlessly discussing the removal of things that got left behind because nobody cared. Are you willing to add support for pkg NG to portmanager? This is something that people say but never cite any sensible examples. The changes seem to me to be pretty transparent. For me portmanager works better than on the day development ceased. All the problems I've had with updates are traceable to the port system itself. How can that be when development has ceased? The use of package files is incompatible with portmanager's design and philosophy. If you want to use package files you wont want portmanager and vice versa, pkgng is purely needed to replace the existing functionality - it provides no benefit. Faster pkgdb and better conflicts management are two of its key points. To me portmaster and portupgrade's limitations lessen the overall user experience more than portmanager's. It's the only one of the three designed to minimise human effort - the other two require much more nursemaiding. We now only have the choice of two tools that place more value on CPU time than my time, and I regard that as a major loss. False. For one, portmaster and portupgrade support from-source builds, and both deal with setting up proper rebuild order, to reduce your personal effort. At least you had the luxury of realising it was deprecated. FreeBSD doesn't exactly announce deprecation on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of The Leopard but it's pretty close. We really need a way of flagging this up for installed packages. True enough. Unfortunately, none of the three tools would mention it when running it in an upgrade-all or assess-all mode. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On 13 Jan 2013 16:02, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote: On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:57:16 -0600 Bryan Drewery wrote: On 1/12/2013 6:07 AM, RW wrote: Does not support modern ports features such as MOVED, is lacking upstream and active contributions, and does not support pkgng. Consider using ports-mgmt/portmaster, ports-mgmt/portupgrade or pkgng. These seem more like bogus excuses than reasons. Portmanager doesn't need MOVED, and the author chose not to support it. There's no compelling reason for portmanager users to switch to pkgng which may well be the reason no-one has done anything. The logical time to remove portmanager is when there are no supported releases with support for the old package tools - if it's not been patched to support pkgng by then. I do agree that harmless working ports should remain left untouched. However, portmanager has lacked contributions for years now, I submitted a bug-fix a few years ago when I found a bug, I haven't submitted any more because I didn't notice any more. Am I to understand that we only permit ports to remain in the tree if they have a minimum level of incorrectness? while the ports framework and goals have moved on. This is something that people say but never cite any sensible examples. The changes seem to me to be pretty transparent. For me portmanager works better than on the day development ceased. All the problems I've had with updates are traceable to the port system itself. The other reasons listed do matter as it lessens the overall user experience of FreeBSD ports, if the tool you are using doesn't actually utilize the framework fully or correctly. How exactly does portmanager underutilise the ports framework? The only example that's been adduced is MOVED, and that was a deliberate design decision that's as valid now as ever. The use of package files is incompatible with portmanager's design and philosophy. If you want to use package files you wont want portmanager and vice versa, pkgng is purely needed to replace the existing functionality - it provides no benefit. Pkgng is also part of the ports tree nowadays, and portmanager must support it. The old pkg_install suite will be removed soon. Portmanager needs fixing! To me portmaster and portupgrade's limitations lessen the overall user experience more than portmanager's. It's the only one of the three designed to minimise human effort - the other two require much more nursemaiding. We now only have the choice of two tools that place more value on CPU time than my time, and I regard that as a major loss. Ps. This is coming from the person who got involved with FreeBSD when I was saddened to see portupgrade deprecated. At least you had the luxury of realising it was deprecated. FreeBSD doesn't exactly announce deprecation on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of The Leopard but it's pretty close. That's the Planning Department! We really need a way of flagging this up for installed packages. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:17:40 +0100 Matthias Andree wrote: Am 13.01.2013 17:02, schrieb RW: On Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:57:16 -0600 Bryan Drewery wrote: On 1/12/2013 6:07 AM, RW wrote: Does not support modern ports features such as MOVED, is lacking upstream and active contributions, and does not support pkgng. Consider using ports-mgmt/portmaster, ports-mgmt/portupgrade or pkgng. These seem more like bogus excuses than reasons. Portmanager doesn't need MOVED, and the author chose not to support it. There's no compelling reason for portmanager users to switch to pkgng which may well be the reason no-one has done anything. The logical time to remove portmanager is when there are no supported releases with support for the old package tools - if it's not been patched to support pkgng by then. I do agree that harmless working ports should remain left untouched. However, portmanager has lacked contributions for years now, I submitted a bug-fix a few years ago when I found a bug, I haven't submitted any more because I didn't notice any more. Am I to understand that we only permit ports to remain in the tree if they have a minimum level of incorrectness? I am very much in support of that view. No half-baked software please. Everyone is free to step up to maintain portmanager - or find (pay) someone who does - and bring it up to speed with the recent changes to the framework, Aside from pkgng what changes do do you think it needs? rather than endlessly discussing the removal of things that got left behind because nobody cared. How long is it since anyone did any development on awk? Is that going to go because nobody cares. Are you willing to add support for pkg NG to portmanager? My main objection is that it's been removed so long before it needs to be. It should have been deprecated six months before it becomes obsolete, not removed now. Because it rarely gets rebuilt I doubt many users even knew about this. This is something that people say but never cite any sensible examples. The changes seem to me to be pretty transparent. For me portmanager works better than on the day development ceased. All the problems I've had with updates are traceable to the port system itself. How can that be when development has ceased? Bugs have been fixed since then - development is what causes bugs. To me portmaster and portupgrade's limitations lessen the overall user experience more than portmanager's. It's the only one of the three designed to minimise human effort - the other two require much more nursemaiding. We now only have the choice of two tools that place more value on CPU time than my time, and I regard that as a major loss. False. For one, portmaster and portupgrade support from-source builds, and both deal with setting up proper rebuild order, to reduce your personal effort. Obviously, but that's the bare minimum for an upgrade tool. Portmanager does more than that. At least you had the luxury of realising it was deprecated. FreeBSD doesn't exactly announce deprecation on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of The Leopard but it's pretty close. We really need a way of flagging this up for installed packages. True enough. Unfortunately, none of the three tools would mention it when running it in an upgrade-all or assess-all mode. I think it should be included in portaudit. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On 2013-Jan-13 19:25:42 +, RW rwmailli...@googlemail.com wrote: Aside from pkgng what changes do do you think it needs? Without pkgng support, how will portmanager interrogate the system to determine what ports are installed and/or need updating? How long is it since anyone did any development on awk? Is that going to go because nobody cares. The base awk is actively maintained both upstream (by its author) and within FreeBSD - the 20121220 version of awk was imported on 2013-Jan-03. -- Peter Jeremy pgpYNebptCJ5i.pgp Description: PGP signature
Removal of Portmanager
Does not support modern ports features such as MOVED, is lacking upstream and active contributions, and does not support pkgng. Consider using ports-mgmt/portmaster, ports-mgmt/portupgrade or pkgng. These seem more like bogus excuses than reasons. Portmanager doesn't need MOVED, and the author chose not to support it. There's no compelling reason for portmanager users to switch to pkgng which may well be the reason no-one has done anything. The logical time to remove portmanager is when there are no supported releases with support for the old package tools - if it's not been patched to support pkgng by then. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Removal of Portmanager
On 1/12/2013 6:07 AM, RW wrote: Does not support modern ports features such as MOVED, is lacking upstream and active contributions, and does not support pkgng. Consider using ports-mgmt/portmaster, ports-mgmt/portupgrade or pkgng. These seem more like bogus excuses than reasons. Portmanager doesn't need MOVED, and the author chose not to support it. There's no compelling reason for portmanager users to switch to pkgng which may well be the reason no-one has done anything. The logical time to remove portmanager is when there are no supported releases with support for the old package tools - if it's not been patched to support pkgng by then. I do agree that harmless working ports should remain left untouched. However, portmanager has lacked contributions for years now, while the ports framework and goals have moved on. Yes pkgng is not default today, but it will be someday, and pkg_install support will be removed. At that time portmanager will stop working completely. Better to migrate now to another tool. When pkgng does become default, you won't care as much as the tool will just work the same as before. The other reasons listed do matter as it lessens the overall user experience of FreeBSD ports, if the tool you are using doesn't actually utilize the framework fully or correctly. If someone wants to step up and maintain and contribute to portmanager please do; we can re-add it at any time. Ps. This is coming from the person who got involved with FreeBSD when I was saddened to see portupgrade deprecated. Now it is maintained and properly handling various ports features. Regards, Bryan Drewery signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
