Portmaster failing

[@lbutlr]

On 01 Jan 2020, at 15:28, Kurt Jaeger <pi at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> If FreeBSD is going to REQUIRE poudriere, then go ahead and do
>> so. If not, then the other packages managers and the ports tree
>> itself have to work without screwing the admin, failing to build
>> for inexplicable reasons, inputting a dependency that breaks other
>> packages, or my favorite, failing to update dependencies.
> 
> If we'd remove portmaster, we'd loose a relevant part of our
> user-base, that's why is has not been removed. This caused
> other issues, as you are well aware.

If you are concerned about losing users without postmaster then fix postmaster. Leaving a port manage that is “broken” is not going to do anything but hurt everyone.


> The open source community (and FreeBSD) really has problems with
> the velocity of the software involved -- and can barely keep up.
> 
> So it's not that easy.

Bit they are perfectly happy to drop support when the replacement packages are still not up to snuff.

>>> You are right that there wasn't a warning, and that was a major
>>> mistake that should not have happened. security/openssl and
>>> security/openssl111 should have contained messages about this switch.
>> 
>> Since openssl updated about a week ago, this oversight falls into the class that I would call ???inexcusable???. If I did this on a job I would (rightly) be immediately fired.
>> 
>> I would fire me if I did something like this.

> If we fired every volunteer when some mishap has happened, we
> would run of of volunteers very fast.

This was the responsibility of a single volunteer? Removing openssl without warning wasn’t something that was discussed over the last six months?




-- 
Lead me not into temptation, I can find the way.