From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Wed Dec 2 10:03:53 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@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 5CE94A3CDF8; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:03:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3308F10D4; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 10:03:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from [192.168.1.22] (253.Red-83-32-1.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [83.32.1.253]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9CBA43C0D; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 04:03:49 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: svn commit: r402813 - head/misc/astrolog To: Andrey Chernov , marino@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org References: <201512020629.tB26TbDb060296@repo.freebsd.org> <565E9DFA.6050502@marino.st> <565EAB52.6010301@freebsd.org> <565EAD1E.8080805@marino.st> <565EB1AC.4000508@freebsd.org> <565EB3B7.8030208@marino.st> <565EB894.4090402@freebsd.org> <565EBB1F.20208@marino.st> <565EBFA4.2010101@freebsd.org> From: John Marino X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org Message-ID: <565EC203.2020204@marino.st> Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:03:47 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <565EBFA4.2010101@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 10:03:53 -0000 On 12/2/2015 10:53 AM, Andrey Chernov wrote: >> It's a solution seeking a problem. >> There's no problem. What we have now works. > > I congratulate you with that, but sorry, I have no willing to continue > our conversation further than this message. Of course, you are not > obligated to consider my personal circumstances and even other people > with similar situation exists they not raising their hands. What's the problem? Your circumstances prevent you from being a maintainer of a port that nobody else thinks enough of to maintain. The solution is you commit to it when you can. Nobody is going to purge an "unmaintained" port that get committed to regularly and builds fine. Hence, there's no problem, even considering your circumstance. > >> I just objected to you thinking that a full-up upgrade of a port is an >> obligation for somebody that notices a port doesn't build and marks it >> broken. > > I already told you that there was no "obligation" word in my thinking, > only wishes and suggestions, but you just ignore being occupied with > your preconception. No, I am occupied with the words you concretely wrote on the commit log. You wrote them. It is NOT a preception. Please stand by what you wrote and don't try to imply that I have a mental issue. > Do you think that people respond only to obligations and not wishes and > suggestions? It was rhetorical question, please don't answer. The "suggestion" was not a fair one. It was not posted in the form of a wish. It was clear you disapproved how how the previous committer handled the port. > I don't suggest to change the word to "unmaintained", I just point that > it will be more logical to indicate no contact with it, following your > idea of what unmaintained is, than give false impression that somebody > with free time from ports@ will deal with. I have no argument with that. > No, I mean your words "because I would sooner deprecate an unmaintained > port than fix it", assuming you decide to do that en masse. Not at all. My commit history shows I have modernized hundreds of unmaintained ports. My commit above just means there is a threshold of pain, and if the port in question exceeds that threshold IMO, then the port is getting deprecated. Some deprecations get removed because somebody fixes the port, most don't and the port is pruned, as it should be. The process works well enough. John