From nobody Sat Feb 24 15:42:05 2024 X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ThrjM6mJfz5B1dv for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2024 15:42:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jamie@catflap.org) Received: from donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net (donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net [IPv6:2001:19f0:7400:8808:123::1]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ThrjL39lfz4SSB for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2024 15:42:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jamie@catflap.org) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=catflap.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of jamie@catflap.org designates 2001:19f0:7400:8808:123::1 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jamie@catflap.org X-Catflap-Envelope-From: Received: from donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net (donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net [209.250.224.51]) by donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id 41OFg50b034220; Sat, 24 Feb 2024 15:42:05 GMT (envelope-from jamie@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net) Received: (from jamie@localhost) by donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id 41OFg5sd034219; Sat, 24 Feb 2024 15:42:05 GMT (envelope-from jamie) From: Jamie Landeg-Jones Message-Id: <202402241542.41OFg5sd034219@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2024 15:42:05 +0000 Organization: Dyslexic Fish To: marklmi@yahoo.com, jamie@catflap.org Cc: rozhuk.im@gmail.com, freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org, dewaynegeraghty@gmail.com, aryehfriedman@gmail.com Subject: Re: FreeBSD ports community is broken [port building configuration notes] References: <87B38D6C-1D83-4158-B03B-F4C8EA396DD1.ref@yahoo.com> <87B38D6C-1D83-4158-B03B-F4C8EA396DD1@yahoo.com> <20240219104333.6ecff336@rimwks.local> <8C4AB1AF-139D-4144-867C-6AD1AE1E1307@yahoo.com> <7B21AFF0-E0D5-4836-8486-F812E79152DF@yahoo.com> <202402201313.41KDD6G2013501@donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net> <9374651A-B5E2-4522-88C0-1E9A3F65E4EA@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <9374651A-B5E2-4522-88C0-1E9A3F65E4EA@yahoo.com> User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.4 7/29/08 List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (donotpassgo.dyslexicfish.net [209.250.224.51]); Sat, 24 Feb 2024 15:42:06 +0000 (GMT) X-Spamd-Bar: - X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.77 / 15.00]; SUSPICIOUS_RECIPS(1.50)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.96)[-0.963]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.61)[-0.612]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[catflap.org,none]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx:dyslexicfish.net]; RCVD_NO_TLS_LAST(0.10)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; FREEFALL_USER(0.00)[jamie]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:20473, ipnet:2001:19f0:7400::/38, country:US]; HAS_ORG_HEADER(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_CC(0.00)[gmail.com,FreeBSD.org]; FREEMAIL_TO(0.00)[yahoo.com,catflap.org]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[6] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4ThrjL39lfz4SSB Hi Mark, Mark Millard wrote: > On Feb 20, 2024, at 05:13, Jamie Landeg-Jones wrote: > > > I've probably grasped the wrong ideas from this thread. I thought it was > > about the implied effective deprecation of the ports infrastructure for > > a binary package only structure, with poudriere being used to create > > custom packages in any way it wants going forward. > > Please do not confuse the original thread's overall range of points > with this more technical subthread. I've been limiting myself to the > subthread's subject area as best I can. Given that focus, . . . > > To my knowledge, poudriere is a user of the ports and pkg > infrastructures (that both exist independent of poudriere), never > the other way around. In that it is like portmaster: layered > on top without invalidating the infrastructures below. > > This also makes poudriere just one of multiple alternatives. > I've not suggested eliminating any of them. Thanks for the reply. That makes it clearer. I did indeed get confused by the way the thread evolved. Cheers, Jamie