From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Thu Nov 1 03:39:21 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16F910EA699 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 03:39:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E1BE7C93E for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 03:39:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 32E2010EA68E; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 03:39:21 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECEA510EA68C for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 03:39:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F1097C939 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 03:39:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C00BC8A96 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 03:39:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id wA13dJ5i093579 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 03:39:19 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id wA13dJuI093578 for ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org; Thu, 1 Nov 2018 03:39:19 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 232058] mail/mutt-lite: Request to restore port Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 03:39:19 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-patch, needs-qa X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: jdc@koitsu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback+ X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2018 03:39:22 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D232058 --- Comment #3 from Jeremy Chadwick --- 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.=