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"
