Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 03:39:19 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 232058] mail/mutt-lite: Request to restore port Message-ID: <bug-232058-7788-TbvZcF113l@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-232058-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-232058-7788@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D232058 --- Comment #3 from Jeremy Chadwick <jdc@koitsu.org> --- Thank you for the explaination. I'll wait and see what happens in 2-4 week= s. Any time I see a basic-functionality port orphaned, I research why it's bei= ng orphaned. I couldn't find any justification in commit messages, discussion= of it on public mailing lists, etc.. All I found was what was in r476197, whi= ch was basically "maintainer requests removal". Maintainers have that right, absolutely, and I support that. But I asked myself as someone who has been= a committer in the past: "was this stub port painful to maintain?" and looked= -- no patches, in fact compared to some other stub ports, this looked remarkab= ly basic: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/mail/mutt/Makefile?revision=3D474967&= view=3Dmarkup#l48 https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/mail/mutt/Makefile?revision=3D474967&= view=3Dmarkup#l100 https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/mail/mutt/Makefile?revision=3D474967&= view=3Dmarkup#l108 This is when I discovered the Makefile shims for MUTT_LITE were left in pla= ce, which made this situation even more bizarre (to me). I thought: "why would someone deprecate a stub port yet leave the shims in place?" The best answ= er I came up with was "maybe the stub port is getting renamed, similar to how vim-lite got renamed to vim-console recently?" But I couldn't find anythin= g of the sort. I don't want to complicate your life as a port maintainer. Really. I've j= ust never seen this situation happen before -- orphaning yes, maintainers wanti= ng to stop maintaining a stub or one-off yes, programs as a whole going the wa= y of the buffalo yes, but not this situation in this manner. I'm fine with switching to mutt (from mutt-lite), but when doing so, I like= to understand exactly why something that worked just fine has to be removed. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-232058-7788-TbvZcF113l>