Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

from Stari Karp: > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 06:24 -0400, Jim Ohlstein wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 06:10 -0400, Stari Karp wrote: > > > Looks like the new portmaster is coming but what is about Synth? I am > > > the user of Synth and I like to know what the FreeBSD leaders decided, > > > please.

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

Your use case is very similar to others that manage servers, particularly on behalf of others. We also rebuilt nightly , if any vulnerabilities were discovered we'd test and push to clients' servers. :) Cheers. -- *Disclaimer:* *As implied by email protocols, the information in this message is n

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 06:24 -0400, Jim Ohlstein wrote: > On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 06:10 -0400, Stari Karp wrote: > > Looks like the new portmaster is coming but what is about Synth? I > > am > > the user of Synth and I like to know what the FreeBSD leaders > > decided, > > please. > > > > The "FreeB

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 04:29:40PM +0200, Thierry Thomas wrote: > ... > But I have a naive question: if pkg supports flavours, and binary > packages are built for your sets of options, is portmaster still > relevant? > Well, that depends... e.g., on one's set of requirements (and how they are

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On 02.06.2017 16:29, Thierry Thomas wrote: Le jeu. 1 juin 17 à 15:45:43 +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff écrivait : Just as a short note: there is a complete rewrite of portmaster ongoing. Since its a beast and everything else is very hard there is no public evidence in case of failure. ;) Unt

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

Le jeu. 1 juin 17 à 15:45:43 +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff écrivait : > Just as a short note: there is a complete rewrite of portmaster ongoing. > Since its a beast and everything else is very hard there is no public > evidence in case of failure. ;) Until now. I've been using portupgrade and

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On 06/02/17 06:24, Jim Ohlstein wrote: > [...] > Sadly, it is/ > was the best option for users looking to migrate to a "modern" tool for > whom poudriere was too much. > Meaning no disrespect to anyone who makes positive contributions to the FreeBSD project, let's not forget that synth's dependen

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 01:31:19PM +0200, Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: > If someone likes synth please support it. This. Very much this. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscrib

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

Looks like the new portmaster is coming but what is about Synth? I am the user of Synth and I like to know what the FreeBSD leaders decided, please. Thank you. SK ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/fre

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On 02.06.2017 12:24, Jim Ohlstein wrote: On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 06:10 -0400, Stari Karp wrote: Looks like the new portmaster is coming but what is about Synth? I am the user of Synth and I like to know what the FreeBSD leaders decided, please. The "FreeBSD leaders," in their infinite wisdom, d

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On Fri, 2017-06-02 at 06:10 -0400, Stari Karp wrote: > Looks like the new portmaster is coming but what is about Synth? I am > the user of Synth and I like to know what the FreeBSD leaders > decided, > please. > The "FreeBSD leaders," in their infinite wisdom, decided to can John Marino. Synth de

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On 01.06.2017 18:20, Matthieu Volat wrote: On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:45:43 +0200 Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: [...] Just as a short note: there is a complete rewrite of portmaster ongoing. Since its a beast and everything else is very hard there is no public evidence in case of failure. ;) Until now

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:45:43 +0200 Torsten Zuehlsdorff wrote: > [...] > Just as a short note: there is a complete rewrite of portmaster ongoing. > Since its a beast and everything else is very hard there is no public > evidence in case of failure. ;) Until now. > > I'm currently try to convince

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On 31.05.2017 20:31, Adam Weinberger wrote: On 31 May, 2017, at 11:28, Per olof Ljungmark wrote: On 2017-05-31 02:10, Kevin Oberman wrote: On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Mark Linimon mailto:lini...@lonesome.com>> wrote: On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:46:46PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote: He

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 05:58:24PM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > Core has some proposals around planning for such changes that they will > be talking about during the BSDCan devsummit next week. These should > also be published internally fairly soon afterwards for the benefit of > people not at

Re: The future of portmaster

> On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 12:47 +, Gerard Seibert wrote: > > I would just like a clarification here. For the record, synth is > > broken > > on FreeBSD-11 and above with amd64. Is that correct? > My understanding was that the breakage is in gcc6-aux on 12-CURRENT > with 64 bit inodes. > I may b

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On Wed, 31 May 2017, Per olof Ljungmark wrote: > Let me just say that I would really, really appriciate if we could keep > such a simple tool. Why does it suit us? Because we have a limited > number of systems, [...] And the sytems we do have can be somewhat limited; I mean, Ada, FFS? -- Dave

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

If you can give me access to a development system, I'll help. (I only have a production server for the domains I host for a few not-for-profit organizations, and my home server is currently out of service with a bad power supply.) Jim Trigg On May 30, 2017 8:10:17 PM EDT, Kevin Oberman wrote

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

> On 31 May, 2017, at 11:28, Per olof Ljungmark wrote: > > > > On 2017-05-31 02:10, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Mark Linimon > > wrote: >>On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:46:46PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote: >>> Hello, I have not f

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 07:28:38PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote: > > On 2017-05-31 02:10, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Mark Linimon > > wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:46:46PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote: > > > He

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On 2017-05-31 02:10, Kevin Oberman wrote: On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Mark Linimon > wrote: On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:46:46PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote: > Hello, I have not followed this thread before but just wanted to say > that I use port

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On 2017/05/31 17:11, Roger Marquis wrote: > Mark Linimon wrote: >> * some extensive changes to the ports framework are coming; > > Is there a URL (other than svnweb) where we can see a project plan for > these changes? As in the recent past (i.e., since 8-REL) the FreeBSD > end-user community has

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 09:11:23 -0700, Roger Marquis stated: >Mark Linimon wrote: >> * some extensive changes to the ports framework are coming; > >Is there a URL (other than svnweb) where we can see a project plan for >these changes? As in the recent past (i.e., since 8-REL) the FreeBSD >end-user

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

Mark Linimon wrote: * some extensive changes to the ports framework are coming; Is there a URL (other than svnweb) where we can see a project plan for these changes? As in the recent past (i.e., since 8-REL) the FreeBSD end-user community has reason to be worried that: * popular tools that w

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On Wed, 2017-05-31 at 12:47 +, Gerard Seibert wrote: > I would just like a clarification here. For the record, synth is > broken > on FreeBSD-11 and above with amd64. Is that correct? My understanding was that the breakage is in gcc6-aux on 12-CURRENT with 64 bit inodes. I may be wrong... --

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

I would just like a clarification here. For the record, synth is broken on FreeBSD-11 and above with amd64. Is that correct? -- Carmel ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, se

Re: The future of portmaster

On 30.05.2017 16:00, Adam Weinberger wrote: On 30 May, 2017, at 7:51, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: when portmaster have gone away? What? WHAT? portmaster going away??? I hope not Anton The ports tree continues to evolve. Major new features are planned and in the process of being implemen

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On 2017-May-30, at 1:06 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:00:14PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: >> Kevin Oberman rkoberman at gmail.com wrote on Tue May 30 16:52:19 UTC 2017 >> >>> I really suggest that you look at synth. > > synth is currently only available for x86 and unless

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:46:46PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote: > > Hello, I have not followed this thread before but just wanted to say > > that I use portmaster extensively, it works for us and I would miss > > it if it went. Are there

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:46:46PM +0200, Per olof Ljungmark wrote: > Hello, I have not followed this thread before but just wanted to say > that I use portmaster extensively, it works for us and I would miss > it if it went. Are there actually plans to retire it? To reiterate the status: * som

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On 2017-05-30 22:06, Mark Linimon wrote: On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:00:14PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: Kevin Oberman rkoberman at gmail.com wrote on Tue May 30 16:52:19 UTC 2017 I really suggest that you look at synth. synth is currently only available for x86 and unless someone steps up to

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On 30 May 2017 at 15:00, Mark Millard wrote: > > ports-mgmt/synth depends on lang/gcc6-aux For reference, I've created PR 219667 to track the lang/gcc6-aux issue. The pre-built bootstrap compilers need to be recreated I believe, with a trick similar to the one used for lang/ghc. _

Re: The future of portmaster

On Tue, 2017-05-30 at 14:25 -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: > > On 30 May, 2017, at 14:19, Thomas Mueller > > wrote: > > > > > > One thing I forgot to mention in my last post is that the UPDATING > > file looks geared to portmaster and portupgrade. > > > > Users are thus led to believe that portu

Re: The future of portmaster

> On 30 May, 2017, at 14:19, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > > One thing I forgot to mention in my last post is that the UPDATING file looks > geared to portmaster and portupgrade. > > Users are thus led to believe that portupgrade and portmaster are still the > currently recommended tools. > > If

Re: The future of portmaster

One thing I forgot to mention in my last post is that the UPDATING file looks geared to portmaster and portupgrade. Users are thus led to believe that portupgrade and portmaster are still the currently recommended tools. If the ports people want to get users to switch to synth or poudriere, up

Re: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:00:14PM -0700, Mark Millard wrote: > Kevin Oberman rkoberman at gmail.com wrote on Tue May 30 16:52:19 UTC 2017 > > > I really suggest that you look at synth. synth is currently only available for x86 and unless someone steps up to do the work to make the Ada compilers

RE: The future of portmaster [and of ports-mgmt/synth]

Adam Weinberger adamw at adamw.org wrote on Tue May 30 14:00:21 UTC 2017: > poudriere and synth are actively developed Kevin Oberman rkoberman at gmail.com wrote on Tue May 30 16:52:19 UTC 2017 > I really suggest that you look at synth. ports-mgmt/synth depends on lang/gcc6-aux which has lost i

Re: The future of portmaster

> On 30 May, 2017, at 11:37, Peter Beckman wrote: > > On Tue, 30 May 2017, Adam Weinberger wrote: > >> You don't need separate port trees. The idea is to use poudriere to build >> ALL your ports. Just make a list of the ports you want, pass it to >> poudriere, and it will keep everything up-to-d

Re: The future of portmaster

On Tue, 30 May 2017, Adam Weinberger wrote: You don't need separate port trees. The idea is to use poudriere to build ALL your ports. Just make a list of the ports you want, pass it to poudriere, and it will keep everything up-to-date, rebuild things when they need to be rebuilt, and give you a

Re: The future of portmaster

> The ports tree continues to evolve. Major new features are planned and in the > process of being implemented. These changes will break all the port-building > tools. > poudriere and synth are actively developed, so they will quickly support the > new changes. portmaster and portupgra

Re: The future of portmaster

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 7:15 AM, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > >From ad...@adamw.org Tue May 30 15:03:31 2017 > > > >The ports tree continues to evolve. Major new features are planned and in > the process of being implemented. These changes will break all the > port-building tools. > > oy vei > > >

Re: The future of portmaster

tl/dr at bottom, repeated here, flowchart please On Tue, 5/30/17, Adam Weinberger wrote: Subject: Re: The future of portmaster To: me...@bris.ac.uk Cc: rollingb...@gmail.com, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Date: Tuesday, May 30, 2017, 7:30 AM

Re: The future of portmaster

> On 30 May, 2017, at 8:15, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > >> From ad...@adamw.org Tue May 30 15:03:31 2017 >> >> The ports tree continues to evolve. Major new features are planned and in >> the process of being implemented. These changes will break all the >> port-building tools. > > oy vei >

Re: The future of portmaster

>From ad...@adamw.org Tue May 30 15:03:31 2017 > >The ports tree continues to evolve. Major new features are planned and in the >process of being implemented. These changes will break all the port-building >tools. oy vei >poudriere and synth are actively developed, so they will quickly support

Re: The future of portmaster

> On 30 May, 2017, at 7:51, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > >> when portmaster have gone away? > > What? WHAT? > > portmaster going away??? > > I hope not > > Anton The ports tree continues to evolve. Major new features are planned and in the process of being implemented. These changes will bre

Re: The future of portmaster

>when portmaster have gone away? What? WHAT? portmaster going away??? I hope not Anton ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@free

Re: The future of portmaster

On Feb 22, 2017 11:36 AM, "rollingbits (Lucas)" wrote: On Feb 19, 2017 12:13 PM, "Matthias Andree" wrote: Am 17.02.2017 um 08:37 schrieb abi: > From my point of view, jails are overkill. Chroot should be enough and > it would be nice if portmaster starts building in clean environment. Please u

Re: The future of portmaster

On Feb 22, 2017 11:36 AM, "rollingbits (Luc wrote: On Feb 19, 2017 12:13 PM, "Matthias Andree" wrote: Am 17.02.2017 um 08:37 schrieb abi: > From my point of view, jails are overkill. Chroot should be enough and > it would be nice if portmaster starts building in clean environment. Please use po

Re: The future of portmaster

On Feb 19, 2017 12:13 PM, "Matthias Andree" wrote: Am 17.02.2017 um 08:37 schrieb abi: > From my point of view, jails are overkill. Chroot should be enough and > it would be nice if portmaster starts building in clean environment. Please use poudriere or some other tool instead, there are some t

Re: The future of portmaster

Am 19.02.2017 um 20:21 schrieb Baho Utot: > How about I will use what _I_ find necessary. BTW I am using Synth. Oh, absolutely. portmaster just doesn't do what you find necessary today. ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.

Re: The future of portmaster

On 02/19/17 10:04, Matthias Andree wrote: Am 16.02.2017 um 21:48 schrieb Baho Utot: Having built and packaged linux from scratch using the rpm package manager, I came to find that if one is building packages to be used on multiple machines, one needs to build each package in a chroot environme

Re: The future of portmaster

Am 17.02.2017 um 08:37 schrieb abi: > From my point of view, jails are overkill. Chroot should be enough and > it would be nice if portmaster starts building in clean environment. Please use poudriere or some other tool instead, there are some that were designed for clean-room rebuilds, which por

Re: The future of portmaster

Am 16.02.2017 um 21:48 schrieb Baho Utot: > Having built and packaged linux from scratch using the rpm package > manager, I came to find that if one is building packages to be used on > multiple machines, one needs to build each package in a chroot > environment or the package could inherit things

Re: The future of portmaster

Am 17.02.2017 um 09:25 schrieb Matthieu Volat: > Just dropping privileges to a dedicated user for building would be a > big step, but that's more a port feature (openbsd's ports do that, if > I'm not wrong). With a distfiles directory writable to the unprivileged user doing the build, and sudo as

Re: The future of portmaster

On 2017-Feb-17 19:03:31 +0100, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: >* dropping privileges is really a nice feature to add. The portstree >allow you to build everything as normal user, so portmaster can be >able to do it as well. I use portmaster as a normal user without problems so I'm not sure what the "ne

Re: The future of portmaster

Hi all, thanks for all the replies. To summarize: * chroot/jails build could be a nice feature, but it will be an option, not a requirement. I understand the needs to build in a clean environment (poudriere and synth works in this direction for a good reason), but as port maintainer, building in

Re: The future of portmaster

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:37:16 +0300 abi wrote > 17.02.2017 00:22, Chris H пишет: > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:48:57 -0500 Baho Utot > > wrote > > >> On 02/16/17 15:40, George Mitchell wrote: > >>> On 02/16/17 15:33, Baho Utot wrote: > > On 02/16/17 14:01, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > Bah

Re: The future of portmaster

On 02/17/17 02:37, abi wrote: > 17.02.2017 00:22, Chris H пишет: >> On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:48:57 -0500 Baho Utot >> wrote >> >>> [...] >> Hello. You shouldn't have any difficulty accomplishing your goal >> by simply setting up a jail, and using portmaster within that jail(8). >> portmaster really

Re: The future of portmaster

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:08:52PM +0100, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: > Hi all, > > portmaster, a tool used/loved/hated, is almost in abandoned state. > I'm a portmaster user, because, in some cases, it fits my needs. > In other cases, I use other tools, like poudriere or synth, that are > really grea

Re: The future of portmaster

On 17/02/2017 09:25, Matthieu Volat wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:37:16 +0300 abi wrote: 17.02.2017 00:22, Chris H пишет: On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:48:57 -0500 Baho Utot wrote On 02/16/17 15:40, George Mitchell wrote: On 02/16/17 15:33, Baho Utot wrote: On 02/16/17 14:01, Lowell Gilbert wr

Re: The future of portmaster

On Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:37:16 +0300 abi wrote: > 17.02.2017 00:22, Chris H пишет: > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:48:57 -0500 Baho Utot > > wrote > > > >> On 02/16/17 15:40, George Mitchell wrote: > >>> On 02/16/17 15:33, Baho Utot wrote: > > On 02/16/17 14:01, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > >

Re: The future of portmaster

17.02.2017 00:22, Chris H пишет: On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:48:57 -0500 Baho Utot wrote On 02/16/17 15:40, George Mitchell wrote: On 02/16/17 15:33, Baho Utot wrote: On 02/16/17 14:01, Lowell Gilbert wrote: Baho Utot writes: On 02/16/17 06:08, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: I'm looking for constr

Re: The future of portmaster

On 02/16/17 17:49, Johan Hendriks wrote: Op 16/02/2017 om 23:04 schreef Baho Utot: On 02/16/17 16:48, Mark Linimon wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 04:36:24PM -0500, Baho Utot wrote: Oh no I am now banned as I use synth, whoa is me. This is overstating the matter. May we restrict oursel

Re: The future of portmaster

Op 16/02/2017 om 23:04 schreef Baho Utot: > > > On 02/16/17 16:48, Mark Linimon wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 04:36:24PM -0500, Baho Utot wrote: >>> Oh no I am now banned as I use synth, whoa is me. >> >> This is overstating the matter. >> >> May we restrict ourselves to the technical problem

Re: The future of portmaster

On 02/16/17 16:48, Mark Linimon wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 04:36:24PM -0500, Baho Utot wrote: Oh no I am now banned as I use synth, whoa is me. This is overstating the matter. May we restrict ourselves to the technical problems/features of the various port maintainence tools, please? :-

Re: The future of portmaster

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 04:36:24PM -0500, Baho Utot wrote: > Oh no I am now banned as I use synth, whoa is me. This is overstating the matter. May we restrict ourselves to the technical problems/features of the various port maintainence tools, please? :-/ mcl

Re: The future of portmaster

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 16:36:24 -0500 Baho Utot wrote > On 02/16/17 16:22, Chris H wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:48:57 -0500 Baho Utot > > wrote > > >> On 02/16/17 15:40, George Mitchell wrote: > >>> On 02/16/17 15:33, Baho Utot wrote: > > > On 02/16/17 14:01, Lowell Gilbert wrot

Re: The future of portmaster

On 02/16/17 16:22, Chris H wrote: On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:48:57 -0500 Baho Utot wrote On 02/16/17 15:40, George Mitchell wrote: On 02/16/17 15:33, Baho Utot wrote: On 02/16/17 14:01, Lowell Gilbert wrote: Baho Utot writes: On 02/16/17 06:08, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: I'm looking for co

Re: The future of portmaster

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017 15:48:57 -0500 Baho Utot wrote > On 02/16/17 15:40, George Mitchell wrote: > > On 02/16/17 15:33, Baho Utot wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 02/16/17 14:01, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > >>> Baho Utot writes: > >>> > On 02/16/17 06:08, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: > > I'm looking for c

Re: The future of portmaster

While I understand the interest in chroot/jails as an optional feature, I hope it doesn't become required. The current non-use of chroot/jails is, for me, a feature -- not a bug.-- George Having built and packaged linux from scratch using the rpm package manager, I came to find that if

Re: The future of portmaster

On 02/16/17 15:40, George Mitchell wrote: On 02/16/17 15:33, Baho Utot wrote: On 02/16/17 14:01, Lowell Gilbert wrote: Baho Utot writes: On 02/16/17 06:08, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: I'm looking for constructive critics, feedbacks, anything that can help me to make portmaster an actively m

Re: The future of portmaster

On 02/16/17 15:33, Baho Utot wrote: > > > On 02/16/17 14:01, Lowell Gilbert wrote: >> Baho Utot writes: >> >>> On 02/16/17 06:08, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: I'm looking for constructive critics, feedbacks, anything that can help me to make portmaster an actively maintained and used tool.

Re: The future of portmaster

On 02/16/17 14:01, Lowell Gilbert wrote: Baho Utot writes: On 02/16/17 06:08, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: I'm looking for constructive critics, feedbacks, anything that can help me to make portmaster an actively maintained and used tool. If you can have it build in a clean chroot or jail then

Re: The future of portmaster

Baho Utot writes: > On 02/16/17 06:08, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: >> I'm looking for constructive critics, feedbacks, anything that can >> help me to make portmaster an actively maintained and used tool. > > If you can have it build in a clean chroot or jail then you'll get my > attention What kind

Re: The future of portmaster

I am glad to see that someone is taking on the work. Thanks. mcl ___ 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"

Re: The future of portmaster

On 02/16/17 06:08, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: > Hi all, > > portmaster, a tool used/loved/hated, is almost in abandoned state. > I'm a portmaster user, because, in some cases, it fits my needs. > In other cases, I use other tools, like poudriere or synth, that are > really great. > I don't want to op

Re: The future of portmaster

On Thu, 16 Feb 2017, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: Hi all, portmaster, a tool used/loved/hated, is almost in abandoned state. I'm a portmaster user, because, in some cases, it fits my needs. In other cases, I use other tools, like poudriere or synth, that are really great. I don't want to open a disc

Re: The future of portmaster

On 02/16/17 06:08, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: Hi all, portmaster, a tool used/loved/hated, is almost in abandoned state. I'm a portmaster user, because, in some cases, it fits my needs. In other cases, I use other tools, like poudriere or synth, that are really great. I don't want to open a discu

Re: The future of portmaster

On Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 12:08:52PM +0100, Luca Pizzamiglio wrote: > Hi all, > > portmaster, a tool used/loved/hated, is almost in abandoned state. > ... > So I decided to spend some time to look at it and to work on it. > Thank you! (I'll take a look at your work later; I'm in the middle of