From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 27 11:36:03 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9E9106564A for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:36:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jerry@seibercom.net) Received: from mail-gx0-f196.google.com (mail-gx0-f196.google.com [209.85.161.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BBF68FC14 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:36:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gxk19 with SMTP id 19so266359gxk.7 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:36:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.97.46 with SMTP id s34mr2498573yhf.491.1303904162288; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:36:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scorpio.seibercom.net (twdp-174-109-142-001.nc.res.rr.com [174.109.142.1]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 27sm340018yhl.25.2011.04.27.04.36.00 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:36:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from seibercom.net (zeus [192.168.1.1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: freebsd-ports.user@scorpio.seibercom.net) by scorpio.seibercom.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3QKK3z3Nvbz2CG54 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:35:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:35:58 -0400 From: Jerry To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20110427073558.439bf198@seibercom.net> In-Reply-To: <20110427074958.GA28824@owl.midgard.homeip.net> References: <20110427014343.GJ38579@comcast.net> <20110427060917.GB73524@comcast.net> <4DB7B75C.7080902@marino.st> <20110427071543.GD73524@comcast.net> <20110427074958.GA28824@owl.midgard.homeip.net> Organization: seibercom.net X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.9 (GTK+ 2.22.1; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.2) Face: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAADAAAAAwBAMAAAClLOS0AAAAJFBMVEUeH4oAAI3//v8LDHmw s8gyNZ/b3ej7+vn+/v////+PjIc8Plaj/TnQAAACNElEQVQ4jaXUvW/aQBQAcFtKGZLFT+YY 3D1SR9SKoRMncE3IggU4kicGi1JYOgQwyYrgnLlSzhsoNkTuVJEp+ef6ztiAoV3aJ+QPfufn s987S/5fQvoXYPjztmfc514Ks+5JfGUCfrzt4+VabF+jwEV4DGEXN8N4p16sPLxHX07/V3qX yfF5D2H6K4V8j9NkyAphvkjBembD5PDFk3zeTzP1jcksyaV9w+d4ELmUoOp8N2p8uQVyhTAT uawnKNH2mie5lJp48mscUcbJUvg0mR6APwAoye9AMyWozY4gAh0vcxa5FJ4TKCuODESWtfkB 8AEQSupUXNIYH8FSC2w8X3eMBNbbVJpJ7MgECO5yJ9DUEWCYkzNAlsRsgwLQ1GkWqELbkDOh 1bUzoHagYkNh9MXlK/MQoA42gTxz2bhPM2DJedm8MZx6cNfJgEZJ5cmwPp5FZ/Ye8O2qTrFV dgOrHkZRBoheJiGrRquwAhnQ6GeTePPerWVmQelAQ5lwNqtvQd2lcooAV74/zR1BIRS19fy5 ru+B/8ReW9pYKMPjt609zDaitHHTGOO+Zu7gHvsKE7XbeE1QVuJXomIFuZgUJdXQdhpqEELc /e8RLjfi+cQ01yMdWot8UcCVxEWHEkcUrsDGuhaIEoM9kfgAR6jxHcmEV7tNURAl8KTHN9iF McKGFHGO62O62UMpbmlVuogQ7ndL8zXCiLeBy3xpfrqaXS/+AHDG4o8AvhuPeezD/3xL/hy/ Adjlg2odglF2AAAAAElFTkSuQmCC Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: Dropping maintainership of my ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 11:36:03 -0000 On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:49:58 +0200 Erik Trulsson articulated: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:15:43AM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote: > > On Tue 26 Apr 2011 at 23:27:40 PDT John Marino wrote: > > > > > >You're just sulking because your idea of identifying popular ports > > >wasn't met with enthusiasm. > > > > > > > No, it's more than that. I got the distinct impression that many > > of the committers would be unhappy if I took maintainership of some > > of the ports I might identify as "popular", because it would > > interfere with their plans to trim the portstree. > > > Then you have misunderstood things. I don't think anybody would be > unhappy if you (or anybody else) took maintainership of one or more of > the currently unmaintained ports. > What plans there are, are not so much about trimming the portstree in > general but trimming the number of unmaintained ports. > > What is met with uninterest is your plans to identify "popular" ports. > > > > Re-read the thread. At every point I'm talking about looking for > > ports I (and others) might want to maintain, as a service to their > > users. Now ask yourself why I've been getting so much resistance > > to that, when we keep hearing how deprecated ports can be easily > > resurrected if someone steps up to maintain them? > > Actually you spend much time speaking about/looking for "popular" > ports and that is what is met with uninterest. > If you want to take maintainership of a port because you personally > use that port and want to have it working, that is great. > If you want to take maintainership of a port because you believe that > it is a "popular" port, then go ahead, just don't expect much help > with identifying such ports. > > > > > Every response from the committers ignored what I said I was trying > > to do, and instead repeated the same old arguments about stale, > > unfetchable, broken or superceded ports. That "talking points" > > response tells me that they didn't want me doing what I was doing > > to buck an already-established policy of letting unmaintained ports > > die unless and until someone complains. > > (Actually the policy is that unmaintained and non-working ports should > be let to die, unless somebody steps up to fix the port and take > maintainership.) > > Nobody is stopping you from assuming maintainership of one or more of > those unmaintained ports, and thus preventing them from being removed. I concur with Erik. I think you are totally missing the point of the original post. The desired wish was to remove dead ports that could not be fetched, or would not build. Possibly, even superseded ports; although that was not specifically mentioned I don't believe. In to many of those cases those ports have no formal maintainer. Unfortunately, some do. In any case, it was proposed that those said ports be removed. Ports that are current would not be affected. As you stated, your ports are current and in working order. This proposal would therefore not effect you unless I am also misreading the intent of the proposal. -- Jerry ✌ jerry+ports@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________ The more we disagree, the more chance there is that at least one of us is right.