On 01 Jan 2020, at 14:18, Adam Weinberger <ad...@adamw.org> wrote
> This is why we practically beg people to use poudriere.
If FreeBSD is going to REQUIRE poudriere, then go ahead and do so. If not, then
the other packages managers and the ports tree itself have to work without
screwing the admin, failing to build for inexplicable reasons, inputting a
dependency that breaks other packages, or my favorite, failing to update
dependencies.
> I've mentioned this to you before, lbutlr, because you post about
> encountering these snags quite regularly, and your (quite warranted)
> frustration is apparent. I really do think that your FreeBSD life will
> be simpler if you switch from portmaster to poudriere.
It is not that simple, of course. This will take quite a lot of work, and a lot
of time, for something that I deal with a handful of times a year. This means
that for the foreseeable future, I would be starting over basically every time
there is some issue.
> They are simply an inevitable consequence of using a very old and broken tool
If the tool is broken, remove it.
> You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major
> mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and
> security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch.
Since openssl updated about a week ago, this oversight falls into the class
that I would call “inexcusable”. If I did this on a job I would (rightly) be
immediately fired.
I would fire me if I did something like this.
--
In the 60's, people took acid to make the world appear weird. Now the
world is weird and people take Prozac to make it appear normal.
_______________________________________________
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"
