From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 10 06:39:29 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54A6C106564A for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:39:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-gw0-f49.google.com (mail-gw0-f49.google.com [74.125.83.49]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 103798FC18 for ; Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:39:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by gwb1 with SMTP id 1so2431810gwb.36 for ; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 23:39:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=c2g5rpcixH1r+cmYBsK48bwyi79RWju+PVI7ruISmwI=; b=CS4sc1ocxwKr0ovRCVnMjDYTRHmCJvh82t60su1W9sVAaZ2eFs0HM5XVov8E9IwUzG 9VAwtYkWPtiQ/goRselhChB5Da0qoExLa7f8pRw7BnZyJ28hYuuMLVsncSG6jLJcHg4/ G3MeMpS+slLAha9BIX89fF+bD4T2pRTBTdTtc= Received: by 10.43.44.73 with SMTP id uf9mr413249icb.507.1315636768079; Fri, 09 Sep 2011 23:39:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: utisoft@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.61.148 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Sep 2011 23:38:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110910004553.610dc809@cox.net> References: <4E651DCF.30605@FreeBSD.org> <201109052146.p85Lkous037023@fire.js.berklix.net> <4E67935C.6080702@aldan.algebra.com> <4E68AC85.4060705@icritical.com> <4E68F34C.6090504@FreeBSD.org> <20110909040954.17733a4e@cox.net> <4E6A476D.7090800@gmx.de> <20110910004553.610dc809@cox.net> From: Chris Rees Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 07:38:58 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: AnFG2Li4cIjtXCb7TPmZS5d1R14 Message-ID: To: "Conrad J. Sabatier" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysutils/cfs X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 06:39:29 -0000 On 10 September 2011 06:45, Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: > On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:05:49 +0200 > Matthias Andree wrote: > >> Am 09.09.2011 11:09, schrieb Conrad J. Sabatier: >> > On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:54:36 +0200 >> > Matthias Andree wrote: >> >> >> >> No, you'd use a managed installation. =A0Nobody stands there >> >> pointing a gun at your head and forces you to uninstall a port >> >> that got removed from the ports/ tree. =A0If people could recognize >> >> that, it might help get the derailed discussion back on the right >> >> track. >> > >> > You fail to take into account the case where a port may need to be >> > reinstalled. =A0An extraordinary effort is required if the port no >> > longer exists in the ports tree. >> >> If a "port may need to be reinstalled" then you failed organize proper >> backups. =A0Not a valid point here. > > Not necessarily. =A0A simple bump in library versioning could require > ports to be rebuilt. > >> > Frankly, I'm growing increasingly concerned that this push to >> > eliminate ports is getting out of control. =A0I don't much care for >> > the notion that, having invested the time in installing, >> > configuring and tuning a certain set of software packages, suddenly >> > the rug could be pulled out from under me, so to speak, in essence >> > *forcing* me to abandon using certain packages or else deal with >> > maintaining them (in the ports maintainer sense) on my own. >> >> The rug is pulled by the upstream maintainers abandoning their >> software, not by FreeBSD no longer packaging it years after the fact. > > While I understand the reasoning behind this, I still feel that as long > as a package continues to build and run without any known issues, then > why be in a rush to drop it? =A0The argument that "the ports collection > is not a museum" is valid to some degree, but if a package is still > usable (and useful), then aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot by > dropping it? > Can we please change the subject line? Most of us are in agreement that this particular case is not that questionable. This thread is for volunteers to fix cfs. Chris