From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Aug 13 13:37:21 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFE2A106566B; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:37:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amdmi3@amdmi3.ru) Received: from smtp.timeweb.ru (smtp.timeweb.ru [92.53.116.15]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECA438FC14; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:37:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [213.148.20.85] (helo=hive.panopticon) by smtp.timeweb.ru with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1QsEU1-0007HB-WA; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:42:38 +0400 Received: from hades.panopticon (hades.panopticon [192.168.0.32]) by hive.panopticon (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96AF3B865; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:37:17 +0400 (MSD) Received: by hades.panopticon (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 832E2B825; Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:37:17 +0400 (MSD) Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 17:37:17 +0400 From: Dmitry Marakasov To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <20110813133717.GA38385@hades.panopticon> References: <201108020942.p729g1Ti068765@repoman.freebsd.org> <20110811180338.GB88978@hades.panopticon> <20110812093328.GE85247@hades.panopticon> <20110812101133.GF85247@hades.panopticon> <4E4584EA.7090306@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E4584EA.7090306@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: Chris Rees , cvs-ports@freebsd.org, Baptiste Daroussin , cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/cad/admesh Makefile X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 13:37:21 -0000 * Doug Barton (dougb@FreeBSD.org) wrote: > We've had this discussion about 6 times now. Maybe we should stop doing things that raise such discussions then? > The community consensus is that we need to cull dead ports from > the tree in order to reduce the maintenance burden and allow for > more flexibility. "Dead" means it doesn't build or doesn't work. Which exactly of these "unfetchable" ports doesn't build or doesn't work? > Two really good indicators that the port is dead is that the > upstream work has stopped for a long time, and that the distfiles > are not fetchable except from our mirrors (which are not intended > to be the primary distribution mechanism). That is strange definition of "dead". Does it stop being dead if I mirror distfiles? Have all dependent ports (on graphics/lib3ds, lang/expect, for example) suddenly became dead too? > What has happened throughout this process is that people have come > forward to maintain ports that they care about, which has included > providing locations to host the distfiles. That is what happened > in this case. What has happened is users being unable to build perfectly working ports because of unneeded BROKEN's. FreeBSD ports are criticized for frequent build problems, there are talks about stable port branch for user to experience less frustration with ports tree, yet such plain sabotage is happening. -- Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D amdmi3@amdmi3.ru ..: jabber: amdmi3@jabber.ru http://www.amdmi3.ru