From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 14 19:59:46 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mandree.no-ip.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A893C1065674 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:59:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mandree@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by apollo.emma.line.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C708723D2E4 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:59:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4EC17327.6030905@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:59:35 +0100 From: Matthias Andree User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110922 Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <20111109124325.17efc0d1.stas@deglitch.com> <20111109222435.GD92221@azathoth.lan> <20111110110637.GA3514@hades.panopticon> In-Reply-To: <20111110110637.GA3514@hades.panopticon> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:59:47 -0000 Am 10.11.2011 12:06, schrieb Dmitry Marakasov: > Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken, it's > useable, you may not remove it, period. It appears to me that yours - although shared with mi@ - is a minority vote, and on top of that, also one with little weight because -- and this is my personal perception that is likely to differ -- it is from one of the people who nag about the policy of fact, and rather talk, than grab a port and fix it so it can stay. Where "work" in the previous paragraph can be substituted with providing other resources, like recruiting new volunteers, bribing current contributors, or thereabout. Nagging from your seat isn't helpful. Now, let's get constructive, here are my ideas for the current round of port removal nagging: 1. I'd like to officially propose to remove the MAINTAINER=ports@FreeBSD.org tag from unmaintained ports and have the ports/Mk/bsd.*.mk stuff be explicit about the port being unmaintained, so as to pull this rug from underneath the naggers so they can no longer delude anyone to believe a port were "maintained by ports@". 2. We could see to exposing deprecations or somethings more clearly. portmaster -L is a contributor here, but I think it needs to move closer to the baseline source. Marking such mars in INDEX (dougb@ mentioned that) sounds useful to me, if it's viable. Else we can consider bumping PORTREVISION when marking a port FORBIDDEN or DEPRECATED so that this change gets exposed. 3. Perhaps we should also consider not to build packages for ports that have the slightest mar (DEPRECATED, unmaintained, whatever) -- but that requires more discussion and thought. You won't leave footprints (read: make any difference to existing practice) unless and until you walk (read: work).