-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 07.02.2016 17:28, John Marino wrote:
> ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing
> portmaster can do that Synth can't. (honestly)
Be installed FROM PORTS without all this build-one-more-gcc stuff.
Ada? For *port*management*
On Feb 11 22:25, Lev Serebryakov wrote:
On 07.02.2016 17:28, John Marino wrote:
ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing
portmaster can do that Synth can't. (honestly)
Be installed FROM PORTS without all this build-one-more-gcc stuff.
Ada? For *port*management* tool? Are
On Sun, Feb 07, 2016 at 11:03:04AM +1100, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> I'm bringing this to the attention of the ports community to try to
> come up with a consensus about how to handle existing documentation
> for ageing packages, in this case portmaster.
>
> This bug report suggests removing
> I am not portmgr, but do use portmaster for updating ports on systems
> running STABLE or HEAD. I still see no tool which provides the features of
> portmaster. I also realize that this is far from a universal opinion.
Please do an honest "fly-off" between ports-mgmt/portmaster and
On Sun, 7 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote:
I am not portmgr, but do use portmaster for updating ports on systems
running STABLE or HEAD. I still see no tool which provides the features of
portmaster. I also realize that this is far from a universal opinion.
Please do an honest "fly-off" between
On 2016-Feb-07 15:28:56 +0100, John Marino wrote:
>Please do an honest "fly-off" between ports-mgmt/portmaster and
>ports-mgmt/synth. I would love to hear what signficant thing portmaster
>can do that Synth can't. (honestly)
Off the top of my head: Has no other ports
I'm bringing this to the attention of the ports community to try to
come up with a consensus about how to handle existing documentation
for ageing packages, in this case portmaster.
This bug report suggests removing the documentation for portmaster
because it is out of date and no longer
On Sat, Feb 6, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Greg 'groggy' Lehey
wrote:
> I'm bringing this to the attention of the ports community to try to
> come up with a consensus about how to handle existing documentation
> for ageing packages, in this case portmaster.
>
> This bug report suggests