On Sunday, December 3, 2017 3:46 PM, Chris H stated: > On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 11:53:58 +0000 "FreeBSD Ports ML" <freebsd-> > [email protected]> 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 say that he has superseded synth with an application called Ravenports[1].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. -- Carmel
pgpseQLhdz4N4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
