From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 26 00:46:58 2011 Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG> 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 51F66106566B for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:46:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peterjeremy@acm.org) Received: from mail10.syd.optusnet.com.au (mail10.syd.optusnet.com.au [211.29.132.191]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB78A8FC0C for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:46:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server.vk2pj.dyndns.org (c220-239-116-103.belrs4.nsw.optusnet.com.au [220.239.116.103]) by mail10.syd.optusnet.com.au (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p3Q0ksIS032493 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:46:55 +1000 X-Bogosity: Ham, spamicity=0.000000 Received: from server.vk2pj.dyndns.org (localhost.vk2pj.dyndns.org [127.0.0.1]) by server.vk2pj.dyndns.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p3Q0koho009554; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:46:50 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from peter@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org) Received: (from peter@localhost) by server.vk2pj.dyndns.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p3Q0ko1Q009543; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:46:50 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from peter) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:46:49 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> To: martinko <gamato@users.sf.net> Message-ID: <20110426004649.GG10901@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <AANLkTinxZmVDX8yU7S6bAoBnSzzzobBN+64XJBapP=bA@mail.gmail.com> <20110317091244.GA17060@lonesome.com> <ip521q$30h$1@dough.gmane.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="AGZzQgpsuUlWC1xT" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <ip521q$30h$1@dough.gmane.org> X-PGP-Key: http://members.optusnet.com.au/peterjeremy/pubkey.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Deprecation campaign X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>, <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports> List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>, <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 00:46:58 -0000 --AGZzQgpsuUlWC1xT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2011-Apr-26 02:02:02 +0200, martinko <gamato@users.sf.net> wrote: >I understand you want to remove a port if it does not build and there is= =20 >no one (in long time) to fix it. However, deprecating because a dist=20 >file moved, while port may be perfectly functional, seems a bit too=20 >much, imho. For these ports, the port as it stands does not fetch. Someone needs to update the port with the new distfile location - this is the responsibility of the port's maintainer. If a port remains broken for an extended period, it indicates that no-one cares about it any longer and therefore no-one should miss it if it's deleted. > So why would we deny them using the=20 >ports if all it takes is publishing the port files somewhere ? And=20 >since FreeBSD has the infrastructure and resources I see no issue in=20 >providing parking for such distfiles, especially if we believe they are=20 >used by minority of users. Or is there something I miss here ? Who do you see as responsible for doing this? Whilst the FreeBSD Project has resources for storing/distributing distfiles, it takes human effort to verify that the port's license allows the FreeBSD Project to host the distfile and to actually copy the distfile. That person also needs to distinguish between the cases: a) The port is up-to-date and the distfile has moved b) The project (and hence distfile) have been renamed c) The port is so out-of-date that the distfie has been removed by the vendor Whilst the effort required for a single port may not be great, the total effort to work through all the ports in this situation would be substantial. This is not the task of the port committers group. It's up to the port's users to come up with a maintainer - if none of a port's users are willing to put in the effort to ensure that the port remains usable, why should the FreeBSD Project expend scarce resources to offering that port? If there are ports on the deprecated list that you use, maybe it's up to you to step up and maintain them. --=20 Peter Jeremy --AGZzQgpsuUlWC1xT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk22FfkACgkQ/opHv/APuIedQQCcCpwM8DQ8nmTAYy/x+At3wp1j KhMAn2xm+z8o2p+3eEsLBxqWHuVUNG40 =tkAB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --AGZzQgpsuUlWC1xT--