From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Oct 23 19:51:34 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A13C1B0CB for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 19:51:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA92F14C for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 19:51:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id C9D14C1B0CA; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 19:51:34 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9799C1B0C8 for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 19:51:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) Received: from nm24-vm2.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (nm24-vm2.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [216.39.63.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0F4D14A for ; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 19:51:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from scratch65535@att.net) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=att.net; s=s1024; t=1477252119; bh=ErhLm1uEusx8Q/Glv7ANSfLBR7VoHXO7TFa1WQPahPY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From:Subject; b=i4uPsK7iV521Lqo5/OtDk6fgEC3ChesKwjH+xrMHgxVv1k+OYacbsPIlGYG/b8qSDtMbXhtG5OGnNG1M7V2dgfP8hO/Kk5l+rGT45EIaMf2BA5IV9dnzIV0pT4eTnW2JCrgGoxBJ1ubMAL4cyhZ5Fn5UoR4cWGT4k1oXlX7m15Y= Received: from [216.39.60.171] by nm24.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Oct 2016 19:48:39 -0000 Received: from [67.195.23.148] by tm7.access.bullet.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Oct 2016 19:48:39 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by smtp120.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 23 Oct 2016 19:48:39 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 208410.57206.bm@smtp120.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: vElGidUVM1nbGZ1q5xqcE_OFP_6Y7dWsmvd.tGH.fDjb5yk A91BtzMlWqL5gTdRYQ.fL8j.qVD739oYNEIB8U_xANNOK0rD1qmbtEo2AaIh njsZSs_R_F1gD6oxMQV6rkvAUMeLCo22r2uohPBPSYcRJiDS_psO8Fl1PaGP YIqeXaYqBmmTV31zm3QG48X_kdGclw9qb8X0gvqHR6FTMLPegFMae.2u.gKQ czFzI4zPTf6FNHYzSRmugukTG2mLQBfmPu7FVHqEZGMtltSSmSX8IZZvvLC9 bJw6ejyjdKlYtJTCoUK2UUNvOhv_rufCMdHVPxi2vOQQPL8elccb2hexyVLS qkOliRcL70AswDXXcKog.3lOH58cfM28O.HMH_EDMUO8wy2boDq0x3WwbwkD .y.uBWUQNuB8snpdfZNn_nbpDkKkOev8EEi.FgSWIAJ57YC.e0XCck2mfLKH t4mQfOA8O3nHpTkSw5TZHqORq15e.XyRaa2NoCcWl_JvAiE13nOuH3pV0pEV 9ybN3Idgo9OpdxbVhLoCkZZtWmH9W6FDu2mBwkNWQkH4KHwYvebzMFiHETVN ZUNwiciElg2vwR5rHISLaxQ-- X-Yahoo-SMTP: pPvqnOaswBBbYZLVYFzvU7GaowLcbNioPp.aF8KvOjZk From: To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_Waschb=FCsch?= Cc: freebsd-ports Subject: Re: Jive prejudices Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 15:48:41 -0400 Message-ID: References: <20161022181202.F36710-100000@main.put.com> <201610231341.u9NDfKpp008090@alpd679.prodigy.net> <348280F2-DA1F-491B-ABF7-66C8A9766AC8@waschbuesch.de> In-Reply-To: <348280F2-DA1F-491B-ABF7-66C8A9766AC8@waschbuesch.de> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 4.2/32.1118 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 19:51:35 -0000 [Default] On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 20:32:00 +0200, Martin Waschbüsch wrote: > >> Am 23.10.2016 um 20:00 schrieb scratch65535@att.net: >> >> For policy, I'd suggest the creation of a flag "Socially >> deprecated" that would leave it in the tree but clue people up >> that there's potentially something unsavory about it. > >As others have already said, it is unlikely that we could come up with a definition of 'unsavory' that is universally accepted. >Also, I doubt that anything technical we could come up with could adequately address this issue as it is not technical in nature. > >I propose that no classification whatsoever be implemented. > >If at all necessary, we could have a disclaimer stating that it is no endorsement of any kind whatsoever if a piece of software is in the ports tree. > >Martin We wouldn't need to come up with a definition: merely flagging it with "socially deprecated" would suffice. Or, I suppose, we could paraphrase Ed Dijkstra's (in)famous editor and flag them "Port considered harmful" :-)