Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 15:48:41 -0400 From: <scratch65535@att.net> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_Waschb=FCsch?= <martin@waschbuesch.de> Cc: freebsd-ports <ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Jive prejudices Message-ID: <kl4q0c9tmegg2upd3tfd3lgakt6hgb2tdi@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <348280F2-DA1F-491B-ABF7-66C8A9766AC8@waschbuesch.de> References: <20161022181202.F36710-100000@main.put.com> <201610231341.u9NDfKpp008090@alpd679.prodigy.net> <acup0clb6r1j3ekl8hg510llbmmpive1eo@4ax.com> <348280F2-DA1F-491B-ABF7-66C8A9766AC8@waschbuesch.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[Default] On Sun, 23 Oct 2016 20:32:00 +0200, Martin Waschbüsch <martin@waschbuesch.de> 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" :-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?kl4q0c9tmegg2upd3tfd3lgakt6hgb2tdi>