On 01 Jan 2020, at 15:28, Kurt Jaeger <p...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> 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. > > If we'd remove portmaster, we'd loose a relevant part of our > user-base, that's why is has not been removed. This caused > other issues, as you are well aware.
If you are concerned about losing users without postmaster then fix postmaster. Leaving a port manage that is “broken” is not going to do anything but hurt everyone. > The open source community (and FreeBSD) really has problems with > the velocity of the software involved -- and can barely keep up. > > So it's not that easy. Bit they are perfectly happy to drop support when the replacement packages are still not up to snuff. >>> 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. > If we fired every volunteer when some mishap has happened, we > would run of of volunteers very fast. This was the responsibility of a single volunteer? Removing openssl without warning wasn’t something that was discussed over the last six months? -- Lead me not into temptation, I can find the way. _______________________________________________ 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"
