Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:07:38 +0200 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> To: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de>, Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone Message-ID: <57ED667A.8080509@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <20160929165700.GA33046@lorvorc.mips.inka.de> References: <2047d7fd-1849-6008-5be1-5fb3d1aa0661@FreeBSD.org> <slrnnuqbaq.2tlc.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de> <3e59578a-8556-111a-f3d4-0e641a50043e@FreeBSD.org> <20160929165700.GA33046@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Christian Weisgerber wrote on 09/29/2016 18:57: > Mathieu Arnold: > >> If the software has not been moved to some other place, (it takes about >> 30 seconds to click the automatic migration to github thing, and it is >> usually done within the hour,) since march 2015, it is most likely >> abandoned and should not be kept in the ports tree. > > That's a bold new policy. > > In the past, if the upstream was gone and the maintainer judged the > software still useful (at their discretion, not based on a cut-off > date), they would even fall back to providing the distfile at > people.freebsd.org. I don't think it is good to remove ports just because source was not updated for some time. There are ports useful even 10 years after last update. Namely pnm2ppa is really old piece of code. It was removed from ports tree because there was not maintainer. So I must become a maintainer and now the port is alive again. I think there should not be policy to remove ports if they have maintainer or some user using them if only thing which should be done is to change SRC url. Miroslav Lachman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?57ED667A.8080509>