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, > > >

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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. >

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 > wrote: On Tue, May 30, 2017 at

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 [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? --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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: *

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

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