From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Wed Jan 27 08:24:45 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 4E562A6E578; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:24:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D986129B; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:24:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from [192.168.1.21] (248.Red-83-39-200.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net [83.39.200.248]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D10243BB9; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 02:24:42 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: svn commit: r407270 - head/ports-mgmt/portmaster To: koobs@FreeBSD.org, Martin Wilke References: <201601261123.u0QBNcvL091258@repo.freebsd.org> <56A86CAD.7030507@marino.st> <56A8747E.5080703@FreeBSD.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, "svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org" , "svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org" Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org From: John Marino Message-ID: <56A87EC8.7060401@marino.st> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:24:40 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56A8747E.5080703@FreeBSD.org> 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 08:24:45 -0000 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