Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 12:48:50 +0200 From: FreeBSD User <freebsd@walstatt-de.de> To: Harry Schmalzbauer <freebsd@omnilan.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Another berserker victim: 03b36d9 textproc/obsidian: Remove expired port Message-ID: <20240616124917.2a9e9fbd@thor.intern.walstatt.dynvpn.de> In-Reply-To: <d3041641-5357-4430-9cde-9f3ae48217f7@omnilan.de> References: <d3041641-5357-4430-9cde-9f3ae48217f7@omnilan.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am Sun, 16 Jun 2024 11:32:02 +0200 Harry Schmalzbauer <freebsd@omnilan.de> schrieb: +1 > Please stop removing perfectly working ports from the tree. >=20 > textproc/obsidian is the latest victim, just because it currently=20 > depends on devel/electron25 - which builds and runs perfectly well too. > User can in-app update obsidian. > If the package building team already blacklisted devel/electron25 to=20 > circumvent interference, why not keep it that way? >=20 > Historically, ports tree was for the users, not for the package building= =20 > team.=C2=A0 It worked well like two decades for both parties, but the las= t=20 > two years there were many ports killed for no reason, resp. by=20 > completely meaningless justifications like 'it's old' - there haven't=20 > been new upstream commits for years. > There is the BROKEN variable for the reason that even non perfectly=20 > working ports can be kept in the tree to be discovered by fellows having= =20 > time to fix it.=C2=A0 Erasing work which people already invested to creat= e a=20 > port is for no benefit to anybody/anything. Not only "historically", we've choosen the make framework way to build port= s due to a lot of customised ports and the load of poudriere build farms creating packages is= in some cases an overkill - and too fragile. =20 >=20 > Let it up to the users' decision how they want to deal with 'pkg audit'=20 > results. > There are people running FreeBSD offline - because FreeBSD can be kept=20 > offline easily and it's easy to run your own package building=20 > environment - even installing ports without building packages still is=20 > an option today. Offline usage is sometimes enforced by security rules to obey. Scanning an = filtering the framework and tarballs is sometimes much easier to accomplish than doing so= with blobs.=20 =20 > The new habit of ports tree cleanup does harm that outstanding FreeBSD=20 > feature and just boosts the disadvantage over Linux that we don't have=20 > applications available which are available on Linux. Maybe Linux lovers/developers acting as FreeBSD committer ... ? ;-) Conflic= t of interests. Sorry ... >=20 > I vote for needing explicit maintainer approval before anyone is allowed= =20 > to remove any ports from the tree. > If the current maintainer isn't responding or a specific port doesn't=20 > have a maintainer, the users' should have a veto option at least. > Blindly removing ports is counter productive to the project, imho. >=20 > -harry >=20 >=20 --=20 O. Hartmann
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20240616124917.2a9e9fbd>