On 12/3/2017 5:04 PM, Carmel NY wrote:
On Sunday, December 3, 2017 3:46 PM, Chris H stated:
On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 11:53:58 +0000 "FreeBSD Ports ML" <freebsd->
po...@freebsd.org> said
On Saturday, December 2, 2017 5:40 AM, Stari Karp stated:
On Sat, 2017-12-02 at 01:12 +0000, Ben Woods wrote:
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
Yes, 6 months but IMO ports maintainers have still 2 or three months.
They "pushed" flavors out to early. I do not why.
Well, I certainly have no intention of installing and then learning
how to use an industrial sized solution line poudriere for a
relatively small home network.
I am hoping that someone can get "synth" back up and working
correctly. If not it might be time for me to look at another OS for my
network.
Looking back at other port management utilities like "portmanager",
"portmaster", "portupgrade" and now "synth", The FreeBSD team has
done
a pretty good job of obfuscating and rendering them impotent. Which
brings me to what happens if I do embrace "poudriere". How long before
that becomes history also?
port-mgmt/poudriere gets the attention, and maintenance that it does,
because it was created, and is maintained by someone with a commit bit
(bdrewery).
port-mgmt/synth was also created, and maintained by someone with a
commit bit (jmarino).
However, John's commit bit was taken away. While I'll not comment as to
why, nor elaborate on my personal stand/feelings regarding that action. I can
say that he has superseded synth with an application called Ravenports[1].
I also attempted to take on ports-mgmt/portmaster early on in my
endeavors as a ports maintainer. However, that experience also didn't go
well, and I'll not bog this thread down with the details. My main intent for my
reply, is simply to indicate as to why history has been the way it has regarding
the other ports management utilities, and to indicate there is another
possible solution, that was not previously mentioned. That I thought you
(and others?) might be interested in. :)
I just checked out <
https://github.com/jrmarino/Ravenports/wiki/quickstart-freebsd>
and < http://ravenports.ironwolf.systems/> and I have to admit that I am
interested.
I am wondering if it will ever get accepted into the ports system.
No way....They hate John around here.
_______________________________________________
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"
