# Ports management default tool



## Minbari (Dec 7, 2017)

*Should synth become the default tool for ports management and a replacement for portmaster/portupgrade/poudriere?*

In my opinion synth it's a great tool for sysadmins or people with more then one computer on same network who run FreeBSD but for regular desktop users with one station and who wants that their system to be updated every day synth is not the best tool, actualy it's awful for that kind of job. So FreeBSD developers don't deprecate portmaster. Does anyone think the sameway?


----------



## fernandel (Dec 7, 2017)

I am a 90% desktop user and I am using Synth from the first time when it came to the ports, I do not have any problem and support for Synth is very good. Yes, I am using portsnap everyday but I do not update everyday. Every too weeks works enough for me.


----------



## Datapanic (Dec 7, 2017)

Pass the popcorn!


----------



## ShelLuser (Dec 7, 2017)

Not really a fan of the idea, the reason I use Portmaster is because its very lightweight and more importantly: easy to script around.

My servers also use a central repository which is used by other servers, but the whole thing is build around Portmaster, run through several of my own scripts.

But then again, in my opinion this is pretty much a non-issue because there isn't a real default anyway. There are several tools which are supported and mentioned in /usr/ports/UPDATING and that's the way I prefer it: not forcing people to use something but giving them a choice in the matter.


----------



## Eric A. Borisch (Dec 8, 2017)

“Casual” users, especially those coming from yum/apt backgrounds, should just be using pkg. Throwing new users directly into ports/synth/postmaster/poudriere if the default configs will work is counterproductive for everyone.

Instructions for how to move to the ‘latest’ pre-compiled repository from ‘quarterly’ should be the first step past pure vanilla pkg.

Only when a user needs a non-default config should they be introduced to the power (and complexity) of ports — first manually (make config, make install), and THEN on to more advanced port management software (synth/poudriere).

I will say synth’s “getting started” directions are much shorter than poudriere’s.


----------



## SirDice (Dec 8, 2017)

Minbari said:


> Should synth become the default tool for ports management and a replacement for portmaster/portupgrade/poudriere?


Why should it _replace_ Poudriere, or anything else for that matter? The great thing about FreeBSD is having choices, you're not forced to use one tool or the other. It may not be the best solution for _you_, Poudriere works best for _me_. And as a side note, Poudriere is also used to build the official packages.



Eric A. Borisch said:


> “Casual” users, especially those coming from yum/apt backgrounds, should just be using pkg.


I agree. Use the packages. The only reason why you would use the ports is when you need to change any of the default settings. If you're going to stick to the defaults use the packages, you have nothing to gain by building from ports (regardless of the tool being used).


----------



## PacketMan (Dec 8, 2017)

My concern is around dependencies.  If I understand right ports-mgmt/portmaster and ports-mgmt/pkg do not depend on other ports. Many other port management tools do depend on other ports. So, what if your port tool can't run, because its dependency is broken? You kinda get into a circular dependency issue there.  And so for that reason I think Portmaster and Pkg should remain the system defaults; one for customized ports building for those who need it, and the other (Pkg) for those who don't need to build customized ports. Other tools can be used if preferred, and at least you have the default tools to fall back on if by "one slip and down the hole you fall".

So with that said I think the core team behind FreeBSD need to keep Portmaster and Pkg in pristine useable condition, and then other folks can bring 'value-add' secondary ports mgmt tools to the table.


----------



## chrbr (Dec 8, 2017)

I consider everything to be almost perfect as it is now. A bunch of options are available, everything is well documented. The users who like to experiment and crash their installations cannot be stopped by some nice recommendation, or even worse by some kind of Blockwart. And every failure has a good side as it is a trigger to learn about back-ups, make up ideas about recovery of data and configurations.

The persons using FreeBSD in their profession should already know what to choose or to do. Hobbyists as myself have a very solid playground and platform as toolbox for real world activities. The good thing is that there are many options to choose from, including the builders as well as ports/packages. I hope this situation will remain.


----------



## tankist02 (Dec 8, 2017)

Does portmaster support the new ports flavors? If not then it is not usable, right?


----------



## chrbr (Dec 8, 2017)

tankist02 said:


> Does portmaster support the new ports flavors? If not then it is not usable, right?


Not yet, but I am confident that ports-mgmt/portmaster will be fixed soon. Right now It is not usable. Or you switch to the quarterly portstree instead of using head. Flavors have not appeared there and as far as I have read ports-mgmt/portmaster should still work using that branch. I have not tried that.


----------



## tingo (Dec 8, 2017)

IMHO, synth cannot become a default tool until it is supported on all supported architectures. If that happens, well, then the project can vote on that question, if they want to.
Personally, I prefer a more lightweight tool, like portupgrade (it was mentioned that support for falavours is being worked on).

As for using pkg - fine, if flavours means we are getting packages for all supported options for all ports. For some reason, I doubt that.


----------



## marino (Dec 8, 2017)

portupgrade requires ruby and berkeley db.  How exactly are you defining "lightweight?"  If it's by number of build dependencies (which is a questionable measure of software mass) then portupgrade isn't lightweight either.  If it's by performance, ruby is not going to compete.  Is "lightweight" just a buzzword here?

Note that portupgrade has 2 major run dependencies (again, ruby and bdb).  synth has no run depends.


----------



## rigoletto@ (Dec 8, 2017)

It seems ports-mgmt/portmaster have a NEW maintainer.


----------



## tingo (Dec 8, 2017)

Lightweight as in "easy to build by default" and as in "easy to get working without a lot of setup first".


----------



## marino (Dec 8, 2017)

tingo@ normally lightweight refers to performance.
The recommended approach to getting software on freebsd is through binary packages, not building it yourself (as was recommended in the past).  So using "it's harder to build" (which is even debatable) isn't really a good measure.  Try comparing the recommended approach (`pkg install synth` vs `pkg install portupgrade`) and then poll which is "lighter".

I'm sure fans of synth will also debate the inplication that synth isn't "easy to get working without a lot of setup".

Have your favorites, but lets keep the disinformation to a minimum, please.


----------



## acheron (Dec 9, 2017)

marino said:


> Try comparing the recommended approach (`pkg install synth` vs `pkg install portupgrade`) and then poll which is "lighter".


`pkg: No packages available to install matching 'synth' have been found in the repositories`
portupgrade for sure.


----------



## marino (Dec 9, 2017)

it's even on FreeBSD 12 and already up to date:
http://pkg.freebsd.org/FreeBSD:12:amd64/latest/All/synth-2.02.txz

unless you're being cheeky and trying on arm6/7, mips, powerpc or some little-used platform that you know synth is not available on ...


----------



## jrm@ (Dec 9, 2017)

Eric A. Borisch said:


> I will say synth’s “getting started” directions are much shorter than poudriere’s.


A basic poudriere setup can be ready in four or five lines:
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2017-December/111448.html


----------



## Eric A. Borisch (Dec 9, 2017)

jrm@ said:


> A basic poudriere setup can be ready in four or five lines:
> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2017-December/111448.html



Ok: synth configure && synth prepare-system. Maintenance of poudriere (esp. of the build jail) I’d argue is a little more intensive, but certainly not by much.

I’ve used both; they both work. Much like vim/emacs, you use the one that works better for you!


----------



## phoenix (Dec 13, 2017)

tankist02 said:


> Does portmaster support the new ports flavors? If not then it is not usable, right?



A call for testers for a version of Portmaster with FLAVOR support was just announced on the ports@ mailing list.


----------



## phoenix (Dec 13, 2017)

Minbari said:


> *Should synth become the default tool for ports management and a replacement for portmaster/portupgrade/poudriere?*



Will never happen as long as synth doesn't run on non-x86 systems.  Simple as that.

A default ports management tool needs to run on every platform that FreeBSD itself runs on.


----------



## tobik@ (Dec 14, 2017)

phoenix said:


> A call for testers for a version of Portmaster with FLAVOR support was just announced on the ports@ mailing list.


An initial version of Portmaster with FLAVORS support has just been committed to the ports tree: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/456351


----------



## Deleted member 30996 (Dec 14, 2017)

phoenix said:


> A call for testers for a version of Portmaster with FLAVOR support was just announced on the ports@ mailing list.



I have a 250GB WD Scorpio Black HDD I've been patiently waiting to install in one of my Thinkpads.


----------

