Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:24:40 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: koobs@FreeBSD.org, Martin Wilke <miwi.fbsd@gmail.com> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, "svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org" <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, "svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org" <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r407270 - head/ports-mgmt/portmaster Message-ID: <56A87EC8.7060401@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <56A8747E.5080703@FreeBSD.org> References: <201601261123.u0QBNcvL091258@repo.freebsd.org> <CAFY%2ByEkOv9-JaJv45WF-GzTxOiFh6k8sZ4rysUS5xTZs=rWNrA@mail.gmail.com> <56A86CAD.7030507@marino.st> <56A8747E.5080703@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/27/2016 8:40 AM, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > 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. Wait, so you are saying we should tell people things are deprecated without recommendations about what to do about it? > > 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. 1) Given as Adam said, that this port is DOCUMENTED in the handbook, it NEVER should have been allowed to be unmaintained. The day Bryan dropped maintainership (of which I do not blame him), that's the day the handbook should have been modified. 2) this port does not need a maintainer, it needs a DEVELOPER. 3) given #2, group maintainership is not an option and frankly anyone that claims this port needs to prove they have to skills to address any issue. 4) Actually there is a non-signficant faction that would very much like to see portmaster dead, mainly for the reasons 1-3. > > Given what the term 'deprecated' implies, I would use a pre-everything: > message instead. > Anyone arguing pro-portmaster needs to be prepared to take up maintainership AFTER claiming and resolving all the open bug reports. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56A87EC8.7060401>