From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 9 11:21:18 2011 Return-Path: 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 A19A9106566B for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:21:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Received: from eastrmfepo103.cox.net (eastrmfepo103.cox.net [68.230.241.215]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45BBA8FC0C for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 11:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmfepo103.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20110909112112.XWHB3924.eastrmfepo103.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:21:12 -0400 Received: from serene.no-ip.org ([98.164.87.41]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id WbMB1h00B0tX9KW02bMBiA; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 07:21:12 -0400 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020206.4E69F6A8.000F,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=VcnKvEc+JFuYEbbjzZ0v7SijtKSuAbyuQmdPXwRCrh8= c=1 sm=1 a=G8Uczd0VNMoA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=HSeXd6ud8jGmpzpM0y1GZQ==:17 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=kviXuzpPAAAA:8 a=CT3OVH5EO2yGb6MlWzMA:9 a=k8MmkWaOmdIPiSW1DW4A:7 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=SV7veod9ZcQA:10 a=4vB-4DCPJfMA:10 a=HSeXd6ud8jGmpzpM0y1GZQ==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none Received: from cox.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by serene.no-ip.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p89BLBC0043345 for ; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:21:11 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2011 06:21:06 -0500 From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20110909062106.6021280f@cox.net> In-Reply-To: <4E68F34C.6090504@FreeBSD.org> References: <4E651DCF.30605@FreeBSD.org> <201109052146.p85Lkous037023@fire.js.berklix.net> <4E67935C.6080702@aldan.algebra.com> <4E68AC85.4060705@icritical.com> <4E68F34C.6090504@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.10 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: sysutils/cfs 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, 09 Sep 2011 11:21:18 -0000 On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:54:36 +0200 Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 08.09.2011 13:52, schrieb Matt Burke: > > > What the current FreeBSD policy of actively deleting perfectly > > usable ports instead of putting a mild hurdle in the way is saying, > > is that FreeBSD will stop me doing what I may want to do because > > FreeBSD knows best. > > The port isn't perfectly usable (because that would mean it's usable > in all circumstances for all advertised purposes, which is explicitly > not the case in the light of known vulnerabilities). And just how in the world can you verify that *any* port is "perfectly usable" by your definition? Should we just go ahead and delete every port in the collection then? -- Conrad J. Sabatier conrads@cox.net