From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 11 21:38:18 2011 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 080F6106564A; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:38:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (pancho.soaustin.net [76.74.250.40]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D9E8FC0A; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:38:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 659CB5619E; Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:38:17 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:38:17 -0600 From: Mark Linimon To: Stanislav Sedov Message-ID: <20111111213817.GB8896@lonesome.com> References: <20111109124325.17efc0d1.stas@deglitch.com> <20111109222435.GD92221@azathoth.lan> <20111110110637.GA3514@hades.panopticon> <4EBCC587.10701@FreeBSD.org> <20111111100708.GA24126@hades.panopticon> <20111111124012.3ec48cb3.stas@deglitch.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111111124012.3ec48cb3.stas@deglitch.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Baptiste Daroussin , Dmitry Marakasov , Martin Wilke Subject: Re: Recent ports removal 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: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 21:38:18 -0000 On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:40:12PM -0800, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > Because portmgr@ is using it? There're numerous cases when unmaintained, buggy, > vulnerable and plainly dangerous stuff stays in tree because someone in portmgr > gang likes it when other applications not used by them being removed without > prior discussion notice. There are always periodic emails, both to individual maintainers and ports@, that summarize which ports are deprecated, expiring, and forbidden. That's served as the best springboard for discussion I know how to do in an automated fashion, for several years. In many rounds of those emails I get responses which result in ports being kept from the scrapheap. I'm not aware of vulnerable things that stay in (other than gnats3, which is still part of our infrastructure), and php52, which apparently is so widely used that we must continue to support it despite our best effrots to clean up the tree. Which other ones are there? >From your email I'm sure you don't believe me, but we are attempting to be objective about removing stale, broken, and dangerous code. It's an imperfect art and relies on judgement calls. Surely we can come up with a better alternative than "just leave ports in forever". I don't think this serves our users well. mcl