> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 15:53, Chris H <bsd-li...@bsdforge.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 10:52:51 -0600 Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org> wrote > >>> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 10:28, Steve Kargl <s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> >>> wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 09:31:41AM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: >>>>> On 5 Oct, 2017, at 9:25, Steve Kargl <s...@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> >>>>> wrote: Which brings me back to my i686 laptop with limited resources. >>>>> If portmgr makes it impractical/impossible to easily install ports >>>>> without a sledge hammer, then testing possible future patches to >>>>> libm will simply skip i686 class hardware. >>>> >>>> I'm not clear what role you think portmgr has in this. Portmgr >>>> merely brings new features to the ports tree. Portmgr itself is >>>> responsible for no build tool other than "make install". >>>> >>>> I don't know how many times I need to keep saying this, but >>>> portmgr is not killing off portmaster. There is simply nobody >>>> developing portmaster anymore, and that is not portmgr's >>>> responsibility. There ARE people developing poudriere, and >>>> that is why poudriere continues to work with new ports tree features. >>>> >>> >>> I suppose it's a matter of semantics. If the Makefiles and *.mk >>> files under /usr/ports are altered to allow subpackages and >>> flavours to enhance pkg and poudriere, which will break portmaster >>> further, then yes portmgr has made a decision to endorse a sledge >>> hammer over simple tools. >>> >>> Mere users of the ports collection are not privy to discussions >>> on a portmgr alias/mailinglist. A quick scan of the members of >>> portmgr and contributors to poudriere show at least 4 common >>> members. There are 8 people listed under portmgr. When decisions >>> were being made on the introduction of subpackages/flavours into >>> the ports collection, did the 4 common members recluse themselves >>> from any formal or informal vote? If no, then there is certainly >>> a conflict-of-interest in what is best for the ports collection >>> versus what is best for poudriere. >>> >>> Yes, portmaster is currently unmaintained. Doug Barton left >>> FreeBSD developement because he was continually brow beaten >>> whenever he pointed out what he felt were (serious) flaws in >>> FreeBSD and in the ports collection. >> >> Not quite. It works in the other direction. Ports isn't designed for >> poudriere. Poudriere is designed for ports. 100% of the flavours development >> is happening in public. Anybody who wishes to work on portmaster can >> participate in the process too. >> >> I think you have a misperception of the relationship between portmgr and >> poudriere. The coming flavours would break poudriere too, except there are >> people actively developing it. >> >> You seem to be fully convinced in a conspiracy to destroy portmaster, and I >> don't get the impression that I'm going to change your mind. All I can tell >> you is that impending portmaster breakage is NOT by design, and is only >> happening because portmaster isn't actively developed anymore. If you'd like >> to believe in secret poudriere cabals and anti-portmaster conspiracies, >> that's up to you. >> >> # Adam > While I have no intention to speak on Steve's behalf. I /would/ like > to speak in his humble defense; > over year ago, I attempted to become maintainer for > ports-mgmt/portmaster. I did so 1) because I /strongly/ believed in > it's value, and 2) it had been scorned for some time, and there were > /many/ discussions to have it removed. At the time I attempted the > request, it had not "officially" had a maintainer, and there was > serious talk as to /really/ having it removed from the ports tree. > bdrewery@ had been nursing it along. Conspiracy, or not. Grepping the > mailing list for portmaster /will/ show /many/ heated discussions > regarding it's removal -- this thread included. In any event, after > a few inquiries regarding taking maintainer for the port. My request > was ultimately declined. I was deemed unqualified. That judgement was > unfounded. :(
I remember that. I have to admit, I was pretty shocked by it as well. > Granted, maintenance of portmaster is no small feat -- it's an > enormous scriptbal. But now some months later, I am maintainer for > ~120 ports! perform a search for portmaster@ and see for yourself. > You can say what you will about some of those ports, but what it > /does/ show, is commitment, and long term commitment to boot! > I grow weary of the circular discussions surrounding portmaster. So > this is what I'd like to propose. It's maintenance is a bigger job for > anyone whom is not it's original author, for anyone that did not > grow it from scratch, and become so intimately familiar with it. So > perhaps a better solution might be for me to attempt again ask to > become maintainer. But this time, make it a group effort -- if for > no other reason, for my own sanity. But better; that it can/will be > more promptly addressed. IOW problems that arise, can more easily > be addressed when a group of individuals are involved with it's > maintenance. > > Seem a reasonable request? If [found] so, I'll solicit for qualified > individuals to work with me on it in a new thread. > > Thanks for your time, and consideration Please reach out to tz first, as he currently maintains the port. Portmaster desperately needs an active developer, and even better if there's a team involved (single responsibility is always a bad long-term plan). Let me know what you need. I'll give you whatever support I can. # Adam -- Adam Weinberger ad...@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org _______________________________________________ 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"
