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 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 handbook but have met with resistance.
Well, yes. Because it works, has no dependencies, and there is no
equivalent replacement. [...]
Warren, you have hit the nail on the head. -- George
+1
I never have problems with portmaster.
(But portupgrade could at times be an utter mess,
I never looked back after switching to portmaster
many years ago.)
And I'm not at all interested in running poudriere
or synth, thank you.
It seems that if people happy with portmaster keep silent, others will assume
it's okay to try to dismiss it;
Yup
so here am I, happy with portmaster.
Don't worry, the people that have the power will dismiss it when they
deem you need to "upgrade" to using synth or poudreire... oh and don't
worry they'll remove distfiles and the previous 4 versions of the
distfiles so that you can't keep your own local copy running, especially
if you publish how to use it yourself.
I could switch to something else that is feature wise similar; but if it would
not written in some quasi-obselete/niche/hipster programing language or involve
admin/config tasks like creating repos.
Until a challenger appears, I'm just going to use and recommend portmaster.
Same.
Regards,
Michelle
_______________________________________________
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"
