From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Wed Jan 27 08:38:18 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 94286A6F4E8; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:38:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from koobs.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-pf0-x230.google.com (mail-pf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::230]) (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 54E6B1047; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:38:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from koobs.freebsd@gmail.com) Received: by mail-pf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id 65so1262835pfd.2; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:38:18 -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=r4XeE/11D+V2YorD7ylxa9jYGgoVvkxMe8gGZnAfer8=; b=QQ2wI8633YZFhhDctt7cvC6FZV2BHGfxmoGpzr/jhUfeVP/Wm5ynpcWFYIvUOCPjsW sscE+64/q9+HSs1XHiCzIHeNdLNDW5QIlDSHgD4rG5SaWkLfDYc8PMcvAc7FZSCSytrp xw9lOj4Zz8atlRo+puMnvuLOyFXsJyJxky5/H+vMB9l63CZK7VOL6daTIdB84Y8B5Bvh 9PB5FkM0vs0yYZQj3y9ocp6ZZmdPi5/0pPLZ3spX65qL5EOVggk8rIO8fYPg9uZi+nbn Tq0vBtgycR3gQvDsbz2Ox5BuNCsf9QHEuq1nN8OQrNBh2jyoKAmlihCMpdS7obgpSoiZ HHfw== 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=r4XeE/11D+V2YorD7ylxa9jYGgoVvkxMe8gGZnAfer8=; b=SdpM2WNfkllvyaJsW01ikPJS+E3L1MS49N6D5+7+rIkWWEN/8AXjQJ1PrjcCO/rNY0 EWl9vr2D/lr18nxl7er2+ywnxaWNe/SuH75vNXFWTMS6XXTgU6Rv1fh4A32qMUO3gtO8 MtfZ0fK9lezqm9mitTtl6XI/b9PIS9mbZM2C4sxQgcABjnumPcB8XEu0FCBkx2BQZtcJ Rn1tAuYLIBRAtl4Ep3J6XSbvloXpaMZHat9b9qGKjCB5HJYkjeqcpei6yzU6UrbAE/si orayV2J5ynU2D1pQXc3Ziv9Rx00ClxBRO9Uw+v9kHqacZOcruPvTwIjyFm6W+C7mmrN0 VG5g== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOS9fiOqFgs5sx/klMsHc4WPbczZu9J0RK43BeIp5A9uVzqPEJhtAdj3sPNbHrLYoQ== X-Received: by 10.98.18.208 with SMTP id 77mr40302513pfs.94.1453883897701; Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:38:17 -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 g10sm7016460pfd.92.2016.01.27.00.38.14 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:38:17 -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> <56A8747E.5080703@FreeBSD.org> <56A87EC8.7060401@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: <56A881F0.4040103@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 19:38:08 +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: <56A87EC8.7060401@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 08:38:18 -0000 On 27/01/2016 7:24 PM, John Marino wrote: > 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? No, that is not what was claimed. What was said (as per the quoted text above), was that the recommendation was preferential, biased at best, if not a conflict of interest. Nowhere does it say or claim that recommendations should not be provided. > >> >> 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. Maybe not the same day, but I agree in principle. > 2) this port does not need a maintainer, it needs a DEVELOPER. Nit picking, since both previous maintainers also developed it. But yes, agreed, it would need a 'developer' to 'maintain it'. > 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. Ok. > 4) Actually there is a non-signficant faction that would very much like > to see portmaster dead, mainly for the reasons 1-3. Digression from the main issue and irrelevant to why people have responded to this change. >> >> 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. Anyone appearing to be 'pro-portmaster' in this thread is actually distracting from the main issue being raised. But yes, anyone who wants to keep it around, ought to attempt to figure out ways to make it better. Also, it's perfectly possible to not want a port DEPRECATED, and not be 'pro' that-port. > John >