Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 15:52:10 -0500 From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" <conrads@cox.net> To: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports deprecations (was: sysutils/cfs) Message-ID: <20110910155210.0b3fcc0b@cox.net> In-Reply-To: <4E6B3AE1.80100@gmx.de> References: <4E651DCF.30605@FreeBSD.org> <201109052146.p85Lkous037023@fire.js.berklix.net> <CADLo838dMd5=TjRF5ffiaPH7o0%2BpeWgaqbQqEfDb3EP-n4ec8A@mail.gmail.com> <4E67935C.6080702@aldan.algebra.com> <CADLo838QkAjq2jPXy_c5MTYW09tZJMvWTNndo3Pnfa3=1c-5Og@mail.gmail.com> <4E68AC85.4060705@icritical.com> <4E68F34C.6090504@FreeBSD.org> <20110909040954.17733a4e@cox.net> <4E6A476D.7090800@gmx.de> <20110910004553.610dc809@cox.net> <4E6B3AE1.80100@gmx.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:24:33 +0200 Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> wrote: > Am 10.09.2011 07:45, schrieb Conrad J. Sabatier: > > >>> Frankly, I'm growing increasingly concerned that this push to > >>> eliminate ports is getting out of control. I 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? The 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? > > Conrad, > > (courtesy Cc: after changed subject, please reply to the list) > > I'd see that as proactive maintenance. > > If there is no upstream maintainer any more, chances is that one time > the port needs code changes to adapt to changes in underlying > libraries. > > For the sake of argument, let's assume this example (I'm not sure if > libpng would be a real-world instance of it, I didn't care enough to > have a closer look): > > There are points in time when dead port X using a changed library Y > needs code changes, for instance, if library Y in some old > unmaintained version is vulnerable, and its fixed versions have a > different API. > > Now, if we tell people soon enough that they may run into that > problem, chances are that people never hit the problem, and > chances are that people hit the problem soon - and the fewer users of > the dead port are forced to make the switch, the better. > > The open question is, is there a point in marking a point DEPRECATED > without giving an expiration date. My personal answer is "no" because > no-one will believe in a DEPRECATED tag without EXPIRATION_DATE and > people will be disappointed because they've grown used to custom and > practice and I can already see the "we told you it was DEPRECATED". > > The real point is that the FreeBSD ports system can not fill in for > the maintainers of discontinued ports. > > There is a certain pragmatism to "as long as it builds, appears to > work, and there are no known critical bugs, let's keep it", but it > has this organizational drawback that it becomes custom and practice > at some time, and ends up hurting more people in the end. Yes, I understand what you're saying, and I don't disagree at all, really. I'm coming to realize that I initially overestimated the extent of this latest round of ports cleanups. It seemed enormous at first, but then, looking back over some of the announcements containing the lists of ports due for deletion, I see now that it's really nowhere near as extensive as my initial impression led me to think. So, basically, I'm "cool" with what's going on. I did do some checking through the lists one more time last night, and put in a few requests to assume maintainership of some ports that I did think were perhaps being prematurely scheduled for removal, but overall, I have no objections whatsoever to the remainder of the them being dropped, and certainly am not interested in investing the time or effort to see what may need to be done to save them. The majority simply aren't worth it, IMHO. :-) Thanks. I'm glad we do, in fact, see eye-to-eye on this. And as usual, the policy FreeBSD has in place on this matter *is*, in fact, a sane, sensible and practical one. Please excuse me if I did, for a moment, appear to be having a "knee-jerk" reaction. :-) Take care, Conrad -- Conrad J. Sabatier conrads@cox.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110910155210.0b3fcc0b>