Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/26/16 03:11, Thomas Mueller wrote: > [...] > What is the current status of portupgrade and portmaster? > > Maintained, deprecated or something else? > > Tom > [...] If "contentious" were an official state, that would be it. Each has its enthusiastic adherents; others are, shall we say,

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

Hi! > What is the current status of portupgrade and portmaster? > > Maintained, deprecated or something else? portupgrade: MAINTAINER= bdrew...@freebsd.org portmaster: MAINTAINER= t...@freebsd.org -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 4 years to go !

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

> On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:57:38PM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, John Marino wrote: > > > I never, not once, tried to "get rid of portmaster". By repeating this > > > untruth after I already corrected you is trolling. There was a very > > > small chance you were just

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 21.12.2016 12:32, John Marino wrote: On 12/21/2016 01:23, Jim Trigg wrote: Therefore my first assumption was that the problem was the new tool I had just started using. Note: while my phrasing may have been poor, I was not meaning to imply that the tool (poudriere) was necessarily broken,

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/21/2016 01:23, Jim Trigg wrote: No, that's not what I'm saying. I can't find anything online showing that this problem has been reported. I've see this reported before, probably on this list, maybe by you. I can't reproduce it using the tool that I've been using for years (portmaster).

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/19/2016 09:02 AM, John Marino wrote: On 12/18/2016 23:42, Jim Trigg wrote: On 12/18/2016 02:24 AM, John Marino wrote: 2) portmaster's dirty build method is inferior to clean environment builds (true) 3) There is better and official alternative (true) Maybe. I have a case where

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 11:57:38PM +1100, Dave Horsfall wrote: > On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, John Marino wrote: > > > I never, not once, tried to "get rid of portmaster". By repeating this > > untruth after I already corrected you is trolling. There was a very > > small chance you were just ignorant

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

2016-12-20 13:57 GMT+01:00 Dave Horsfall : > Perhaps for you to just quietly FOAD? When it comes to common sense, you > appear to be utterly impervious. Perhaps we can stay polite? -- Demelier David ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Mon, 19 Dec 2016, John Marino wrote: > I never, not once, tried to "get rid of portmaster". By repeating this > untruth after I already corrected you is trolling. There was a very > small chance you were just ignorant but thanks for admitting you knew > exactly what you were doing and

Re: Subscription for committer (was: Re: The ports collection has some serious issues)

> 17.12.2016 22:40, John Marino пишет: >> I am not subscribed to the mail list > A port's committer is not subscribed to the ports@ ML? > Is it a joke? > WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam) When I see frequent posts by somebody on a mailing list, I assume that person is a regular

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:42:30AM -0500, Jim Trigg wrote: > On 12/18/2016 02:24 AM, John Marino wrote: > > 2) portmaster's dirty build method is inferior to clean environment > > builds (true) > > 3) There is better and official alternative (true) > > Maybe. I have a case where portmaster (on my

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/18/2016 23:42, Jim Trigg wrote: On 12/18/2016 02:24 AM, John Marino wrote: 2) portmaster's dirty build method is inferior to clean environment builds (true) 3) There is better and official alternative (true) Maybe. I have a case where portmaster (on my current production box) builds

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

ng that doesn't work at all. Real smooth there, Slick. It's been mentioned several times in this thread alone that Ada is only available for i386 and amd64. Not in this thread, no it hasn't. I went digging and found that it has been mentions in some of the other 7 separate "The ports co

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 18/12/2016 10:16 AM, John Marino wrote: On 12/17/2016 19:35, Peter Jeremy wrote: $ cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/synth/ && make [ about an hour of grinding away elided ] ===> ini_file_manager-03_2 depends on file: /usr/local/gcc6-aux/bin/ada - not found ===> gcc6-aux-20160822 is only for

Subscription for committer (was: Re: The ports collection has some serious issues)

17.12.2016 22:40, John Marino пишет: > I am not subscribed to the mail list A port's committer is not subscribed to the ports@ ML? Is it a joke? -- WBR, Boris Samorodov (bsam) FreeBSD Committer, http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve ___

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

2016-12-18 21:22 GMT+01:00 Kevin Oberman : > synth(8)... try it, you'll like it. (Sorry, dating myself.) I also never tried synth as I'm very familiar with poudriere, but I'll have a look for sure :) -- Demelier David ___

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

why you are so insistant on replacing it with something that doesn't >> work at all. >> > >Real smooth there, Slick. > >It's been mentioned several times in this thread alone that Ada is only >available for i386 and amd64. Not in this thread, no it hasn't. I went digging and

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/18/2016 02:24 AM, John Marino wrote: 2) portmaster's dirty build method is inferior to clean environment builds (true) 3) There is better and official alternative (true) Maybe. I have a case where portmaster (on my current production box) builds fine but poudriere (on my intended

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016, Willem Jan Withagen wrote: On 18-12-2016 16:00, John Marino wrote: [please keep me CC'd, I can't respond easily if not] I find that sort of strange... but that could be my feeling. Given the hyperbole and intentionally misleading content of waay too much of this thread,

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 18-12-2016 16:00, John Marino wrote: > [please keep me CC'd, I can't respond easily if not] I find that sort of strange... but that could be my feeling. Someone builds a tool, and then decides that it is not very useful to be part of the community that he creates the tool for... Like I

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Sun, 18 Dec 2016, John Marino wrote: > > > Real smooth there, Slick. > > > > Sarcasm might get you somewhere, but I'm not sure you want to be > > there. > > He was trolling. You know it. I know it. Everyone that read it knows it. I happen to know Peter as a friend; you don't. He doesn't

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 18/12/2016 14:18, Grzegorz Junka wrote: > Isn't poudriere automatically saving the options file when building a > new port with default options (i.e. when no options have been > specified)? And also, aren't the selected options available in the > resulted pkg file, so that synth could look them

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 17 Dec 2016, at 20:47, Alphons van Werven wrote: > But ever >> since some time during the 9.X era I started to pick up signs that the >> FreeBSD project as a whole is moving into a direction that troubles me--in >> some cases deeply indeed. I don't know what direction

The ports collection has some serious issues

Grzegorz Junka wrote: On 17/12/2016 18:51, John Marino wrote: On 12/17/2016 12:34, abi wrote: 2. It doesn't provide dialog for port options, so 2.1 I don't receive information if port options have changed. I don't know what else will be pulled to my system after port tree update. which of

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 17/12/2016 18:51, John Marino wrote: On 12/17/2016 12:34, abi wrote: 2. It doesn't provide dialog for port options, so 2.1 I don't receive information if port options have changed. I don't know what else will be pulled to my system after port tree update. which of course is a false

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/18/16 02:24, John Marino wrote: The whole "see, it's not a replacement, you lose" tactic is weak and transparent. Nobody ever said that. what was said: 1) portmaster is not maintained (true) 2) portmaster's dirty build method is inferior to clean environment builds (true) 3) There is

The ports collection has some serious issues

David wrote On 12/16/2016 04:06 PM, John Marino wrote: Starting with a clean system: 1) install synth from binary package from official freebsd builder (a single package) What about just building synth from ports? Then the OP have everything built from ports. -- David In the example, the

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/16/2016 04:06 PM, John Marino wrote: Starting with a clean system: 1) install synth from binary package from official freebsd builder (a single package) What about just building synth from ports? Then the OP have everything built from ports. -- David

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 17:43:32 +1100 Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Saturday, 17 December 2016 at 20:16:12 -0600, John Marino wrote: > > On 12/17/2016 19:35, Peter Jeremy wrote: > >> $ cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/synth/ && make >

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

>From John Marino and my previous post: > > I believe you could cd $PORTSDIR/ports-mgmt/synth and > > make package-recursive |& tee build-12amd64.log (or whatever you want to > > name the log file; this example if for shell tcsh)? > That installs build dependencies on the system. That would be

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/18/2016 00:43, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: On Saturday, 17 December 2016 at 20:16:12 -0600, John Marino wrote: On 12/17/2016 19:35, Peter Jeremy wrote: $ cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/synth/ && make [ about an hour of grinding away elided ] ===> ini_file_manager-03_2 depends on file:

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Saturday, 17 December 2016 at 20:16:12 -0600, John Marino wrote: > On 12/17/2016 19:35, Peter Jeremy wrote: >> $ cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/synth/ && make >> [ about an hour of grinding away elided ] >> ===> ini_file_manager-03_2 depends on file: /usr/local/gcc6-aux/bin/ada - >> not found >>

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/17/2016 19:35, Peter Jeremy wrote: $ cd /usr/ports/ports-mgmt/synth/ && make [ about an hour of grinding away elided ] ===> ini_file_manager-03_2 depends on file: /usr/local/gcc6-aux/bin/ada - not found ===> gcc6-aux-20160822 is only for amd64 i386, while you are running armv6.

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

Since you insist it's perfect, I thought I'd try synth... On 2016-Dec-16 09:06:30 -0600, John Marino wrote: >Starting with a clean system: >1) install synth from binary package from official freebsd builder (a >single package) I don't understand why I need to install

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

John Marino wrote: > maybe you could open one final PR and provide a patch that does this? Fair enough, will do. Fonz -- A.J. "Fonz" van Werven Notice: this e-mail address wil expire on Sat 24 Dec 2016. signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

> On 17 Dec 2016, at 20:47, Alphons van Werven wrote: > > Michael Gmelin wrote: > >> Maybe you could elaborate a bit more what you find so annoying about >> running "poudriere testport origin" before doing "svn commit" that you >> are willing to drop port maintainership

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/17/2016 13:47, Alphons van Werven wrote: Needless to say, not being a committer myself, whether/that said folks are required to use Poudriere and/or Synth for their QA checking is ipso facto none of my concern. However, I'm pretty sure I know what comes next. When maintainers need to

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

Michael Gmelin wrote: > Maybe you could elaborate a bit more what you find so annoying about > running "poudriere testport origin" before doing "svn commit" that you > are willing to drop port maintainership over it? Sure. In this case it's the precedent that bugs me. Needless to say, not being

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/17/2016 13:35, Mark Linimon wrote: This is the sixth "top of thread" post. Could you please arrange to stop breaking email threading? Thanks. mcl I have to assume you're talking to me. Mark: 1) I am not subscribed to the mail list 2) FreeBSD chooses not to store the raw email content

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

This is the sixth "top of thread" post. Could you please arrange to stop breaking email threading? Thanks. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/17/2016 12:34, abi wrote: 2. It doesn't provide dialog for port options, so 2.1 I don't receive information if port options have changed. I don't know what else will be pulled to my system after port tree update. which of course is a false statement. If you set port options which then

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

2. It doesn't provide dialog for port options, so 2.1 I don't receive information if port options have changed. I don't know what else will be pulled to my system after port tree update. which of course is a false statement. If you set port options which then change, Synth will stop and tell

The ports collection has some serious issues

abi wrote: I tried to switch from portmaster to synth yesterday. Tests was sponsored by zfs snapshots. I still have strong opinion that synth IS NOT replacement for portmaster and not usable at all. Yes, synth build ports, however it's just builds them. I don't receive information: 1. Why it

The ports collection has some serious issues

From Thomas Mueller: From John Marino: Starting with a clean system: 1) install synth from binary package from official freebsd builder (a single package) 2) Configure synth if necessary 3) command synth to build itself 4) pkg delete synth (system is once again clean) 5) pkg add -F

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/17/2016 01:49, Hrant Dadivanyan wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote: On 2016-Dec-15 19:31:22 +0100, list-freebsd-ports at jyborn.se wrote: Interestingly, the most vocal proponent of deleting portmaster and portupgrade is the author/maintainer of synch. It's not

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/17/2016 07:55, Michael Gmelin wrote: On 17 Dec 2016, at 14:26, Alphons van Werven wrote: John Marino wrote: In fact, anyone that updates ports should use either poudriere testport or synth test. Then consider these relinquished: /usr/ports/archivers/zip

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 17/12/2016 13:22, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:45 PM, John Marino wrote: Now, regarding synth: as I have already said, I have no special interest in package builders. I do need a tool to build and install the ports I use, and my current

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

> On 17 Dec 2016, at 14:26, Alphons van Werven wrote: > > John Marino wrote: > >> In fact, anyone that updates ports should use either poudriere testport >> or synth test. > > Then consider these relinquished: > > /usr/ports/archivers/zip > /usr/ports/astro/wmmoonclock

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

John Marino wrote: > In fact, anyone that updates ports should use either poudriere testport > or synth test. Then consider these relinquished: /usr/ports/archivers/zip /usr/ports/astro/wmmoonclock /usr/ports/astro/xearth /usr/ports/devel/byaccj /usr/ports/devel/csmith /usr/ports/devel/gzstream

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 3:45 PM, John Marino wrote: >> > >> I won't say "never". But I feel that both package builders (poudriere, >> synth) need some more time to shake out more issues / bugs and get >> into a better shape first. This isn't based on any specific

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

tacking a slightly off-topic topic onto this one On 12/15/16 10:31 AM, list-freebsd-po...@jyborn.se wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:18:05PM -0500, George Mitchell wrote: On 12/15/16 09:40, Warren Block wrote: On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Matt Smith wrote: On Dec 08 05:16, Daniil Berendeev wrote:

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

I tried to switch from portmaster to synth yesterday. Tests was sponsored by zfs snapshots. I still have strong opinion that synth IS NOT replacement for portmaster and not usable at all. Yes, synth build ports, however it's just builds them. I don't receive information: 1. Why it builds

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Fri, 16 Dec 2016, at 16:34, Roger Marquis wrote: > If portmaster was part of base I'd agree that it should be deprecated, > however, being a port it can be afforded more leeway. All portmaster > needs IMO is a strong WARNING message to be displayed on installation A) > enumerating some of the

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

>From John Marino: > At face value, this doesn't make sense because synth is a tool for building > everything from source, so your development system is exactly where it should > be installed. > So you must be talking about build dependencies of synth (there are no run > dependencies). While I

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

> > > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > >> On 2016-Dec-15 19:31:22 +0100, list-freebsd-ports at jyborn.se wrote: > >> Interestingly, the most vocal proponent of deleting portmaster and > >> portupgrade is the author/maintainer of synch. > > It's not interesting at all.

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 16/12/2016 14:45, John Marino wrote: DragonFly has switched to Synth from poudriere as it's primary package builder. That means it builds entire repositories (25,000 packages) biweekly on multiple servers. It's highly used which serves as continuous testing. I also use it on FreeBSD

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

John Marino wrote: From porters handbook, section 12.15: "It is possible to set DEPRECATED without an EXPIRATION_DATE (for instance, recommending a newer version of the port) I'd consider that to be a bug. So it's not a contradiction. Ports that have a specific removal date must have

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/16/2016 10:09, Roger Marquis wrote: I never understood why people went ape- over it, unless they don't understand what "deprecated without expiration" actually means. Perhaps then this is the crux of the issue. From my experience "deprecated" means only that something will not

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

It is just semantics. That may be but as illustrated in this thread people maintain unreasonable expectations of portmaster which they often blame on the ports subsystem. I never understood why people went ape- over it, unless they don't understand what "deprecated without expiration"

The ports collection has some serious issues

Roger Marquis wrote It is every week. Consider the FreeBSD forums as well. "misuse" and "misunderstanding" failures are attributed to the tool. Let's stop making excuses for portmaster. It is what it is and we've had years to evaluate it. If portmaster was part of base I'd agree that it

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

It is every week. Consider the FreeBSD forums as well. "misuse" and "misunderstanding" failures are attributed to the tool. Let's stop making excuses for portmaster. It is what it is and we've had years to evaluate it. If portmaster was part of base I'd agree that it should be deprecated,

The ports collection has some serious issues

From Kevin Oberman: Just to add another voice of those who use portmaster on a regular basis. I moved to portmaster about seven years ago and have has very few issues with it. I have had issues building ports from time to time, but it's been a long time since i hit one that was not a problem

The ports collection has some serious issues

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote: On 2016-Dec-15 19:31:22 +0100, list-freebsd-ports at jyborn.se wrote: Interestingly, the most vocal proponent of deleting portmaster and portupgrade is the author/maintainer of synch. It's not interesting at all. Synth was in a large part

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/16/16 07:42, Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote: FWIW, I'm a happy portupgrade user. Me too. I just frequently run into a bug: when icu is updated, somehow the old libraries are not saved and all ports depending on icu break. Now I know that I should take care with that single port. Also, I

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 15.12.2016 18:43, Miroslav Lachman wrote: John Marino wrote on 2016/12/15 17:46: [1] I've got it on my todo list to provide a new method that would eliminate the "my builder just rebuilt 150 packages, but pkg(8) only upgraded 2 packages" issue that some users don't want to see. It's a lot

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Mon, 12 Dec 2016, at 17:20, Julian Elischer wrote: > > Have you considered using things like poudriere that would allow you to > > build > > your own repository with your own set of packages and options. > > > > You will benefit: > > - ability to use pkg for your upgrades > > - ability to use

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2016-Dec-15 19:31:22 +0100, list-freebsd-po...@jyborn.se wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:18:05PM -0500, George Mitchell wrote: > >> On 12/15/16 09:40, Warren Block wrote: > >> > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Matt Smith

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 6:42 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2016-Dec-15 19:31:22 +0100, list-freebsd-po...@jyborn.se wrote: >>On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:18:05PM -0500, George Mitchell wrote: > >>(But portupgrade could at times be an utter mess, >>I never looked back after

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 2016-Dec-15 19:31:22 +0100, list-freebsd-po...@jyborn.se wrote: >On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:18:05PM -0500, George Mitchell wrote: >> On 12/15/16 09:40, Warren Block wrote: >> > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Matt Smith wrote: >> > >> >> On Dec 08 05:16, Daniil Berendeev wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Although

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

> Here, it doesn't look like that. Don't forget that /usr/ports/distfiles > accumulates old versions and must be manually cleaned out from time to > time. portmaster has a couple of options to remove distfiles that are > not needed. > > % du -hd0 /usr/ports > 8.1G/usr/ports > % du -hd0

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

Matthieu Volat wrote: On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:31:22 +0100 list-freebsd-po...@jyborn.se wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:18:05PM -0500, George Mitchell wrote: On 12/15/16 09:40, Warren Block wrote: On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Matt Smith wrote: On Dec 08 05:16, Daniil Berendeev wrote: Although

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

John Marino freebsd.contact at marino.st on Thu Dec 15 16:46:54 UTC 2016 wrote: > For i386 and amd64 users, synth does not require more resources than > portmaster. People on those platforms can't use "resources" as a reason > not to use Synth. From what I can tell, portmaster people hate

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 19:31:22 +0100 list-freebsd-po...@jyborn.se wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:18:05PM -0500, George Mitchell wrote: > > On 12/15/16 09:40, Warren Block wrote: > > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Matt Smith wrote: > > > > > >> On Dec 08 05:16, Daniil Berendeev wrote: > > >>> > > >>>

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 01:18:05PM -0500, George Mitchell wrote: > On 12/15/16 09:40, Warren Block wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Matt Smith wrote: > > > >> On Dec 08 05:16, Daniil Berendeev wrote: > >>> > >>> Although portmaster is not releated to the FreeBSD project and is an > >>> outside

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/15/16 09:40, Warren Block wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Matt Smith wrote: > >> On Dec 08 05:16, Daniil Berendeev wrote: >>> >>> Although portmaster is not releated to the FreeBSD project and is an >>> outside tool, there aren't any alternatives from the project itself. So >>> use it or die.

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

John Marino wrote on 2016/12/15 17:46: [1] I've got it on my todo list to provide a new method that would eliminate the "my builder just rebuilt 150 packages, but pkg(8) only upgraded 2 packages" issue that some users don't want to see. It's a lot more complicated than the conservative yet

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

I want to talk about another issue: the testing of ports framework We usually test our ports via poudriere or synth. We have a greate ports framework to help us build software, and we only need to write a few lines of code to leveage it. But ... where is the testing of the framework ? Those code

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 15.12.2016 17:46, John Marino wrote: On 12/15/2016 10:31, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: On 15.12.2016 17:00, John Marino wrote: It is every week. Consider the FreeBSD forums as well. No, it isn't. Lets check the history. This is just a general statement. portmaster was added 2006 and the

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/15/2016 10:31, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: On 15.12.2016 17:00, John Marino wrote: It is every week. Consider the FreeBSD forums as well. No, it isn't. Lets check the history. This is just a general statement. portmaster was added 2006 and the portstree startet in 1994. Can you agree

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 15.12.2016 17:00, John Marino wrote: On 12/15/2016 09:49, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: On 15.12.2016 16:29, John Marino wrote: Although portmaster is not releated to the FreeBSD project and is an outside tool, there aren't any alternatives from the project itself. So use it or die. Not a nice

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, RW via freebsd-ports wrote: On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 07:40:46 -0700 (MST) Warren Block wrote: On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Matt Smith wrote: On Dec 08 05:16, Daniil Berendeev wrote: Although portmaster is not releated to the FreeBSD project and is an outside tool, there aren't any

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/15/2016 09:49, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: On 15.12.2016 16:29, John Marino wrote: Although portmaster is not releated to the FreeBSD project and is an outside tool, there aren't any alternatives from the project itself. So use it or die. Not a nice situation. People have been trying to

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016 07:40:46 -0700 (MST) Warren Block wrote: > On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Matt Smith wrote: > > > On Dec 08 05:16, Daniil Berendeev wrote: > >> > >> Although portmaster is not releated to the FreeBSD project and is > >> an outside tool, there aren't any alternatives from the project

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 15.12.2016 16:29, John Marino wrote: Although portmaster is not releated to the FreeBSD project and is an outside tool, there aren't any alternatives from the project itself. So use it or die. Not a nice situation. People have been trying to get portmaster deprecated and removed from the

The ports collection has some serious issues

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Matt Smith wrote: On Dec 08 05:16, Daniil Berendeev wrote: Although portmaster is not releated to the FreeBSD project and is an outside tool, there aren't any alternatives from the project itself. So use it or die. Not a nice situation. People have been trying to get

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Matt Smith wrote: On Dec 08 05:16, Daniil Berendeev wrote: Although portmaster is not releated to the FreeBSD project and is an outside tool, there aren't any alternatives from the project itself. So use it or die. Not a nice situation. People have been trying to get

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Thu, 8 Dec 2016, Daniil Berendeev wrote: 5) svn repository. I don't want to spark a holy war and I don't belong to those type of people who are always obsessed that something isn't done in their way. But guys, svn is not a good tool for ports. Just for one reason, actually (as for me, I

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/12/2016 23:14, scratch65...@att.net wrote: [Default] On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:01:33 +1030, Shane Ambler wrote: The quarterly ports has been setup for a couple of years but doesn't seem to be documented well, or it just isn't obvious to find. You can use svn to

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 13/12/2016 06:01, Julian H. Stacey wrote: I would say this rarely happens with the default setup, the more port options you change the more likely it is something will break. Yes, I now start: cd /var/db/ports; mv * MV/* ; setenv NO_DIALOG=YES Before: cd /usr/ports; make

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

Julian Elischer julian at freebsd.org wrote on Mon Dec 12 16:15:32 UTC 2016: > The problem I get hit by is that the quarterly packages are deleted > immediately on the creation of the next quarterly set. Packages: true --but not true of svn's sources for ports:

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > I would say this rarely happens with the default setup, the more port > > options you change the more likely it is something will break. > > Yes, I now start: cd /var/db/ports; mv * MV/* ; setenv NO_DIALOG=YES >

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

> I would say this rarely happens with the default setup, the more port > options you change the more likely it is something will break. Yes, I now start: cd /var/db/ports; mv * MV/* ; setenv NO_DIALOG=YES Before: cd /usr/ports; make BERKLIX_CLIENT=YES # Uses ports/*/Makefile.local

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 8/12/2016 8:28 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 05:16:24AM +, Daniil Berendeev wrote: Hello guys! First of all, it's not a hate mail, I appreciate all the work done on the system and I enjoy using FreeBSD every day. But after some recent experience I'd like to

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 8/12/2016 6:05 PM, Vlad K. wrote: On 2016-12-08 06:16, Daniil Berendeev wrote: I mean, they are the FIRST landing point of a change. And the only QA we ask for that change is a confirmation that poudriere and portlint have been run, the rest is at liberty of committers how far they'll go

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

[Default] On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 13:55:57 +0100, Kurt Jaeger wrote: >Hi! > >> >> On 12/11/2016 03:35 PM, scratch65...@att.net wrote: >> >>> I have to admit that I avoid ports if at all possible because >> >>> I've hardly ever been able to do a build that ran to completion. >[...] >>

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On Sun, 11 Dec 2016 19:42:07 -0700 Janky Jay, III wrote: > Hello scratch, > > On 12/11/2016 03:35 PM, scratch65...@att.net wrote: > > I have to admit that I avoid ports if at all possible because > > I've hardly ever been able to do a build that ran to completion. > > There's always some piece

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

Hi! > >> On 12/11/2016 03:35 PM, scratch65...@att.net wrote: > >>> I have to admit that I avoid ports if at all possible because > >>> I've hardly ever been able to do a build that ran to completion. [...] > >Note that there are over 26000 ports, over 1600 port maintainers and > >hundreds of

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

[Default] On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 17:01:33 +1030, Shane Ambler wrote: >On 12/12/2016 13:12, Janky Jay, III wrote: >> Hello scratch, >> >> On 12/11/2016 03:35 PM, scratch65...@att.net wrote: >>> I have to admit that I avoid ports if at all possible because >>> I've hardly ever

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/12/2016 13:12, Janky Jay, III wrote: Hello scratch, On 12/11/2016 03:35 PM, scratch65...@att.net wrote: I have to admit that I avoid ports if at all possible because I've hardly ever been able to do a build that ran to completion. There's always some piece of code that's missing and

Re: The ports collection has some serious issues

On 12/12/2016 02:42, Janky Jay, III wrote: Hello scratch, On 12/11/2016 03:35 PM, scratch65...@att.net wrote: I have to admit that I avoid ports if at all possible because I've hardly ever been able to do a build that ran to completion. There's always some piece of code that's missing and

  1   2   >