On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 at 2:36 am, Carmel NY <carmel...@outlook.com> wrote:
> > First, welcome flavors. It has been badly needed for a while and is > going to > > clean up a couple of messes that have been plaguing the port system for a > > long time. > > > > Second, whither port msanagement tools? At least portmaster now appears > > dead. Any reason to expect it to be workable again? I have not tried > synth > > with flavors, yet,.but I see noting committed to deal with them, so it > looks > > like port management has devolved to raw "make" operations or poudriere. > > Am I missing some other option? > > > > I really with there ha been at least a days warning of the flavoring of > python > > so I could have set up to do tings a bit more smoothly. > > > > Some issues are still unclear. e.g. pygobject3 is orphaned. Since I have > 23 > > ports that depend on py34-gobject3, I don't see deleting it as viable. > pkg > > shows no upgrade path... just "orphaned: devel/py3-gobject3". None of the > > ports htat depend in it show that they need updates. I'm going to guess > that I > > can build the py-gobject3 port with FLAVOR=36 and that will fix a bunch > of > > stuff, but I am not really sure. If I rebuild that way, will I break any > of the > > ports that previously wanted ry34-gobject3? Don't know, but it will > break my > > entire desktop if it fails. > > > > I might mention that cython, compat10x, compat9x are also orphaned. This > > looks pretty ugly. Are they really gone? Or re there flavor here, as > well? > > again, pkg gives no clues. > > Synth is failing since this change. I get the feeling that, as usually > happens, nobody > actually vetted this correctly. > > -- > Carmel Hi Carmel, My understanding is that poudriere is the only package building system that is officially supported by the portmgr, apart from raw make. There are many other nice ports building tools contributed by the community, which each have their niche market, but the maintenance of those tools is a community responsibility also. The announcement of impending flavors and breakage of package building infrastructure that doesn’t support it was some time ago (I believe at least 6 months), with a number of reminders since then. If a community developed and maintained package building tool does not support flavors, I don’t believe that is the fault of portmgr. I don’t believe FreeBSD could delay such an important feature to the ports tree any longer. I welcome the introduction of flavors, think the timing was good (not immediately before the new quarterly branch), and also hope someone steps up to update the community maintained package building tools to support it soon. Thanks to all those involved in bringing flavors to the ports tree! This is a great day. Regards, Ben > -- -- From: Benjamin Woods woods...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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"
