From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Aug 30 22:35:58 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489013CD68D for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 22:35:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from fedex2.jetcafe.org (fedex2.jetcafe.org [205.147.26.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "fedex2.jetcafe.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4Bfp8D5Fdlz4g09 for ; Sun, 30 Aug 2020 22:35:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) X-Envelope-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from bigus.dream-tech.com (bigus.jetcafe.org [205.147.26.7]) by fedex2.jetcafe.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07UMZns1062300 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 30 Aug 2020 15:35:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 15:35:48 -0700 From: Dave Hayes To: Dave Horsfall Cc: FreeBSD Ports Subject: Re: Aggressive ports removal Message-ID: <20200830153548.0a6ac177@bigus.dream-tech.com> In-Reply-To: References: <202008291154.07TBsr7L086597@repo.freebsd.org> <9a4583d9-097e-d0ba-4959-5c4d7b96b611@freebsd.org> <20200829232707.GC46173@eureka.lemis.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JetCafe-SA-Rules: Using your user_prefs file X-Spam-Score: -1 ( out of 5.1) ALL_TRUSTED,SHORTCIRCUIT X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin version 3.4.4-jetcafeglobal X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.83 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4Bfp8D5Fdlz4g09 X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of dave@jetcafe.org designates 205.147.26.23 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=dave@jetcafe.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.59 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.02)[-1.022]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.99)[-0.992]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[jetcafe.org]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.28)[-0.278]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:7397, ipnet:205.147.0.0/18, country:US]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-ports]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2020 22:35:58 -0000 On Mon, 31 Aug 2020 08:03:32 +1000 (EST) Dave Horsfall wrote: > What does "xtset" do that the following script does not? While accurate, this point is not relevant to the discussion at hand. I believe this discussion is about some people (including myself) feeling that ports are removed too aggressively. I would like to add my small voice to the people calling for some restraint on this. Ports that continue to work, despite years of changes in other software, shouldn't be removed. Those are likely the some of the best written ports. Part of the appeal of FreeBSD is it's ability to run legacy software, and a port that does not need maintenance isn't "dead" if it never needs maintenance in the first place. -- Dave Hayes - Consultant - LA CA, USA - dave@dream-tech.com >>>> *The opinions expressed above are entirely my own* <<<< Due to confusion, people mistake things for themselves; covetousness flares up, and they get into vicious cycles that cloud perceptions and enshroud them in ignorance. The vicious cycles go on and on, and people cannot be free.