Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 19:09:03 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 199333] graphics/pdf2svg UNBREAK - add MASTER_SITES Message-ID: <bug-199333-13-WIXYT4xmUk@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-199333-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-199333-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199333 --- Comment #12 from Chris Hutchinson <portmaster@bsdforge.com> --- (In reply to John Marino from comment #11) > (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. Speaking for *this* port. I had looked for *quite* some time for a port that did *exactly* what this port did. I don't know if that constitutes/ defines "obscure". But I can't tell you how happy I was to have discovered this port. If you really want a port to die. IMHO it might be more effective to issue an EOL/DEPRECIATION warning: Heads up, this port is slated for removal on XXXX-XX-XX because it doesn't appear to be of any significant value to anyone. You could then easily determine it's *actual* value based on the response to the message. > 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. See just above. > > > > 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. I didn't see that in this case. I *did* attempt to find the file on the web site, but w/o success. Glad you (two) were able to discover otherwise. Especially in the case of the GitHub version. Thanks John, for your thoughtful reply. I don't know how you effectively determine that a port must die, nor how you have determined (exactly) how many ports I am capable of (effectively) maintaining. But I can assure you, I give reasonable consideration to those ports I *choose* to maintain. I have also been unable to find the list of ports that everyone wants to die. ;) Thanks, again. --Chris > > Thanks -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-199333-13-WIXYT4xmUk>