On 31.05.2017 20:31, Adam Weinberger wrote:
On 31 May, 2017, at 11:28, Per olof Ljungmark <p...@intersonic.se>
wrote:
On 2017-05-31 02:10, Kevin Oberman wrote:
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Mark Linimon
<lini...@lonesome.com <mailto:lini...@lonesome.com>> 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 actually plans to retire
it?
To reiterate the status: * some extensive changes to the ports
framework are coming; * these will require large changes to all
the port upgrade tools; * no one has stepped forwards to offer to
do the work for anything other than poudriere AFAIK. If no one
does the work, at the time the large changes come, the other
tools will break. People have been wanting subpackages (aka
flavors) for many years; IIUC these are parts of the changes that
are coming. Someone needs to step forwards and say "yes, I will
do the work." mcl Since portmaster is still popult and since the
only solutions that looks to be available in the near term are
pouderiere or raw make, neither terribly viable for many, I will
look into updating portmaster to deal with 'flavors'. This looks
fairly straight forward and I my have the sh capability to manage
it. (And then again, I am far from a great shell person, so I may
well be wrong.) I have looked at Doug's script and it is pretty
readable, but writing may require help. Can someone point me
where to look for documentation on flavors? I have poked around
the wiki, but to no avail. Unless there is documentation on what
needs to be done, doing it will be hopeless and waiting for the
packaging system to updated means portmaster WILL be broken for
some period of time.
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 they are all different meaning that
we custom build for almost every task. Portmaster makes very easy
to build what we need on each host. Yes, it brakes sometimes but it
is not that hard to figure out how to get around.
I want to reiterate that nobody is taking portmaster away from you.
It simply has not been actively developed for years. In all
likelihood, somebody will patch portmaster eventually. Poudriere is a
safer, more capable tool than portmaster, and it's better to migrate
when there's no immediate time pressure or breakage.
The changes are not about to drop. Portmaster is not going to stop
working tomorrow. We are bringing it up now so that you have time to
consider migrating to poudriere or synth. If your system(s) and
workflow make poudriere a viable option, we want to encourage and
help you to migrate while there's no time pressure.
Sending emails to this list about why you prefer portmaster doesn't
change the underlying problem, though: portmaster will only be
long-term viable if somebody actively develops it again.
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 all persons already got frustrated by
portmaster-programming to come together and work on it. I'm also working
at an decent automatic QA for it (and PHP and GitLab).
Greetings,
Torsten
_______________________________________________
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"
