From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 11 18:03:24 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5F30FAC for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2015 18:03:24 +0000 (UTC) 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 mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81571210 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2015 18:03:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id t3BI3OYB030087 for ; Sat, 11 Apr 2015 18:03:24 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 199333] graphics/pdf2svg UNBREAK - add MASTER_SITES Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 18:03:24 +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: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: marino@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Closed X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- 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: 7bit 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: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 18:03:24 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199333 --- Comment #11 from John Marino --- (In reply to Chris Hutchinson from comment #10) > Should I find my list growing beyond my ability to give them the > attention they deserve/require, I can/will give them back to ports@ :) Unfortunately, this is the exact scenario that I fear. People want port X to die because they are sick of it. Then if you claim it, we pretty much have to assign it to you, but if then release it later on, it's going to hang around until it's finally deprecated again. In this scenario, people would rather it just die instead of coming back in unmaintained. I know you are coming from it with the Point of View that you are doing everyone a favor, but hopefully now you can see it's not always viewed as a positive thing. This is why I have been recommending that you limit this to ports you actually use. > In going through the list, I found ports that while *seemingly* > somewhat obscure, appeared to have value. To *me* anyway. I interpret the above as a confirmation that I was right -- that you don't actually use the port, but somehow it appears valuable and worth saving anyway. This is the situation I was warning against. We have all the ports in version control, so any can be revived if somebody actually wants it. > I have no desire to take a port from anyone that is a Maintainer. But > after a bit of investigation, those that I substituted myself for, > appeared to have been using distcache for some time -- often for more than > a year. Well, please that the file wasn't just moved on the same server (as in this case) or if the exact same file is readily available somewhere else. The length it was pulling from distcache really doesn't indicate anything -- only that nobody noticed. Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.