From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Wed Jan 27 07:40:58 2016 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 3014EA6F6A1; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 07:40:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from koobs.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pa0-x22a.google.com (mail-pa0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5299163F; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 07:40:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from koobs.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: by mail-pa0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id ho8so434990pac.2; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 23:40:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VS3BDglsSJbA1kj4OxmtWn2oo0oqUUh5Una5flUDY+k=; b=Ly/E+mLIMXIWNEofdU1FP0pqcsA4oi+wEIwTHcxa57U4TrFU1cNnaiDb+ipTgWNfQX tT6g5/NcsscFZqP1NGBnGcuHzb7qZrtG8GsIPXFCXBoG2o8MFBhEzStMcJdFstlqCcn2 F0eXrx0MPdkNEuqQC9oJHD8glj9hTaQOVPCIkJDNHJb15T+c0/PO4BsOMnMuybuWxkCl O2gbPugP4n1IHnf1ZH4UYavgLVpHuBDotjPHdYB5oCkp0ASBqtg3WhAAYQ6EIOwZsW3d OyMhuIgngyTbEPQVv10fyUmqYuoItjr6m9Vv0WwZ89WsmjjkdRSRaXMlLauuNfJqMPUs 3EMA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:reply-to:subject:references:to:cc:from :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=VS3BDglsSJbA1kj4OxmtWn2oo0oqUUh5Una5flUDY+k=; b=I/rkWwMPkOZCpLTehlOVVGA5qQGrA8kKcmzEX5GvoejrhISII7J5MUnsy5+TVB2sKa yJZAjVQIvnNN66UhCBI/+3rLq+41xzOMNiorQ5fGKoYcz7G65XaA2JQiM0niYutqlghe PTAfYLzvLZ1lgQRAhviCuanLkOnXpSS1IvasOJPOJ1TucHLhWXVIZvO7+Metn6HKTPh8 4d2fryOfz+Z7unnFolOkvPeFtcbvIj01O6WTeRLkru4fh99dsDNe7hnU0nfY7GITyro3 z6o2+JgCjp1B3RJ7Uu97gvJ4YeIT/gR4F93h5qNGyKuwh2uTcKcl6dtJUMFZz3awBxb5 Lckw== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTYfLWTNOlcCo4oS/CehkJWNBYcZuo+pg5KPD/voezFxwjC65VH7mJt+iy0uLXt0A== X-Received: by 10.66.102.70 with SMTP id fm6mr40471642pab.80.1453880457031; Tue, 26 Jan 2016 23:40:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:44b8:31ae:7b01:6821:be33:19f8:f73a? (2001-44b8-31ae-7b01-6821-be33-19f8-f73a.static.ipv6.internode.on.net. [2001:44b8:31ae:7b01:6821:be33:19f8:f73a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r12sm6634876pfi.9.2016.01.26.23.40.54 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Jan 2016 23:40:56 -0800 (PST) Sender: Kubilay Kocak Reply-To: koobs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r407270 - head/ports-mgmt/portmaster References: <201601261123.u0QBNcvL091258@repo.freebsd.org> <56A86CAD.7030507@marino.st> To: marino@freebsd.org, Martin Wilke Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, "svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org" , "svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org" From: Kubilay Kocak X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Message-ID: <56A8747E.5080703@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 18:40:46 +1100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:44.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/44.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56A86CAD.7030507@marino.st> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 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, 27 Jan 2016 07:40:58 -0000 On 27/01/2016 6:07 PM, John Marino wrote: > As I said previously, this commit does not do anything except warn the > user about portmaster so they are aware of the serious performance and > maintenance issues that it has. There is no expiration date. This statement is false. The change also adds a recommendation preferentially for a particular replacement for both tier one architectures. Given you are the author of the recommended package, this is biased at best, if not a conflict of interest. I find no issue with notifying users that portmaster is *currently* unmaintained and has open issues, and that support can't *currently* be provided for it. However, I don't believe we ought take actions that hasten its demise. In fact, I believe a statement to the effect that we *want* someone to take maintainership in order to avoid further bitrot would be worthwhile. Given what the term 'deprecated' implies, I would use a pre-everything: message instead.