From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 12 11:14:22 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955EA106566C; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:14:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (lefty.soaustin.net [66.135.55.46]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB508FC1D; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:14:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 27AAF8C074; Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:14:22 -0600 (CST) Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 05:14:22 -0600 To: Gerald Pfeifer Message-ID: <20090212111422.GB19851@soaustin.net> References: <200902071511.n17FBVqH073928@repoman.freebsd.org> <20090207160151.829C78FC71@release.ixsystems.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) From: linimon@lonesome.com (Mark Linimon) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, QAT@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bitrot [was: cvs commit: ports/science/mbdyn Makefile] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 11:14:23 -0000 [Cc: trimmed] On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 05:44:13PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > We really shouldn't have so many ports without a real maintainer properly > taking care. > > The amount of bitrot in the tree is worrisome [...] Agreed; however, in the past the question has been, "who decides what ports should be removed"? I once attempted to do a survey based on "last time port was updated"; however, it did not result in what I expected. In particular, some of the ports in math/ had not been updated for a while -- but appeared to still be not only the latest version, but also still useful. One might assume that certain ports are "good enough" as they are. This is by no means to deny there's bitrot. There's a continuum in terms of "serves its purpose correctly" to "needs to be updated continuously" (for the latter, imagine web browsers). We have portscout to at least help us a bit in the update category -- and I am trying to see what has broken in the distfile survey to try to fix that end. Of course, various portmgrs work on setting things broken/to-expire, and so forth, and we send out emails based on that. But there's no good metric currently to determine "is anyone using this port or not", other than to mark it for deprecation, push the email about deprecated ports, and see who reacts. (FreshPorts subscriptions and sysutils/bsdstats output are opt-in, and thus probably not statistically significant). So, I think this is an open topic. mcl