On 2/11/2016 10:32 PM, Matt Smith wrote: > Remember that before portmaster we had cvsup which was written in > Modula-3 and portupgrade which is written in Ruby. Whilst it is nice > that portmaster is just a simple shell script with no dependancies > that's a relatively new thing.
I'm familiar with the M3 situation (I actual maintain the M3 port which came in after CVS was removed) and I understand why people are gunshy about obscure languages. I don't think this is a comparable situation though. A broken Synth cannot leave the system in a bad or unrecoverable state. One could remove it and it's products in a second and the machines that used it would continue as normal. There are alternatives (ports, official packages, poudriere, portmaster, etc) so there's no critical path. I'm always aware (and was bitten by) portupgrade and ruby. I know why people wouldn't want that again. Still the situation cannot be compared to Synth. Portmaster was good in that it didn't have its own database and used the ports framework. Poudriere also does that and now Synth, so it's no longer unique in that aspect. Dependencies matter if it's part of a bootstrap process or maybe part of base or in a critical path, but I don't think any of that applies in this case. John _______________________________________________ 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"
