What a load of nonsense... I can't be bothered to read the whole thread but unfortunately I voted 'No' because of my opinion, and then I realized that this post is so poor that it doesn't even manage to clearly explain what I've been voting on. Am I saying "No, this post is not right" or is the OP thinking that I'm voting in agreement with whatever he preaches to be not right?
So to avoid any confusion: my "No" vote is directed against the main post itself, that's the part which I think is not right here.
There's nothing wrong with ports-mgmt/portmaster and I dare say so because I've been using it for even longer than the main post exists. I started using it ever since I discovered it somewhere around FreeBSD 10 and I've been using it right up to this point. Even during the time when it became unmaintained for a while and it has never failed me.
And I've heard plenty of people share their frustrations with Portmaster over the years and all fair enough because they shared their opinion. But to start boasting how people should not be using it because it's bad is just ridiculous and something I pick up as utter slander, which I think it's really a poor display. Like I always say: only tools blame their tools.
In fact... I dare argue * that it's actually a lot worse to rely on tools like Synth and/or Poudriere. Not because I think they're bad, nonsense, but because of what they do.. See, both environments obfuscate the actual building process. Meaning? If you know how the ports collection works, if you're familiar with things like /etc/make.conf and the several build targets as explained in ports(5) then all that experience will do you little good when working with either environment.
Because you're no longer working with the ports collection anymore, nah, you're now working with the building environment which will be working with the ports collection for you. You don't have to know anymore how to use build targets, nah, you need to know how to use your build environment instead.
Eventually resulting in some users who will become so alienated from the actual process that they'll start to believe that whatever those building environments do is right and everything else to be wrong. How unfortunately however that "everything else" involves the actual FreeBSD build process for the Ports collection, a process that has been in use long before those build environments even existed.
Which is actually one of the reasons I personally dislike both Synth and Poudriere and I don't think they really add much useful to the whole process. But that's only my opinion, you will never see me start a rant against their usage. Simply because while I may dislike both programs I still respect the projects themselves.
In fact.. the following argument applies to all three, so including Portmaster: all build environments get the job done. So who am I to start whining about how using Poudriere or Synth could be bad?
TL;DR?
I think the OP is ridiculous, been using Portmaster for almost as long as I've been using FreeBSD itself and I never had issues with it. From setting up servers to KDE powered workstations, things always worked out for me. IMO only tools blame their tools.
</vent>
* (edit): Not really, I definitely can't be bothered to waste more time on this thread, let along argue about a pointless topic as this. Just wanted to clear up my vote which ended up sharing my dislike for the thread.
So to avoid any confusion: my "No" vote is directed against the main post itself, that's the part which I think is not right here.
There's nothing wrong with ports-mgmt/portmaster and I dare say so because I've been using it for even longer than the main post exists. I started using it ever since I discovered it somewhere around FreeBSD 10 and I've been using it right up to this point. Even during the time when it became unmaintained for a while and it has never failed me.
And I've heard plenty of people share their frustrations with Portmaster over the years and all fair enough because they shared their opinion. But to start boasting how people should not be using it because it's bad is just ridiculous and something I pick up as utter slander, which I think it's really a poor display. Like I always say: only tools blame their tools.
In fact... I dare argue * that it's actually a lot worse to rely on tools like Synth and/or Poudriere. Not because I think they're bad, nonsense, but because of what they do.. See, both environments obfuscate the actual building process. Meaning? If you know how the ports collection works, if you're familiar with things like /etc/make.conf and the several build targets as explained in ports(5) then all that experience will do you little good when working with either environment.
Because you're no longer working with the ports collection anymore, nah, you're now working with the building environment which will be working with the ports collection for you. You don't have to know anymore how to use build targets, nah, you need to know how to use your build environment instead.
Eventually resulting in some users who will become so alienated from the actual process that they'll start to believe that whatever those building environments do is right and everything else to be wrong. How unfortunately however that "everything else" involves the actual FreeBSD build process for the Ports collection, a process that has been in use long before those build environments even existed.
Which is actually one of the reasons I personally dislike both Synth and Poudriere and I don't think they really add much useful to the whole process. But that's only my opinion, you will never see me start a rant against their usage. Simply because while I may dislike both programs I still respect the projects themselves.
In fact.. the following argument applies to all three, so including Portmaster: all build environments get the job done. So who am I to start whining about how using Poudriere or Synth could be bad?
TL;DR?
I think the OP is ridiculous, been using Portmaster for almost as long as I've been using FreeBSD itself and I never had issues with it. From setting up servers to KDE powered workstations, things always worked out for me. IMO only tools blame their tools.
</vent>
* (edit): Not really, I definitely can't be bothered to waste more time on this thread, let along argue about a pointless topic as this. Just wanted to clear up my vote which ended up sharing my dislike for the thread.