Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 19:48:14 +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-IqmdFU2QRq@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 #13 from John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> --- > 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. I already said this port was an exception, that it was "interesting". I saved it on my own so obviously I think it's useful. I found this PR because I was saving the PR. > 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. Almost every port I'm talking about had deprecation warnings. That never stopped anyone before. We don't need to make funny deprecation messages. > You could then easily determine it's *actual* value based on the > response to the message. How? Talking historically, you were the only one that responded to the message, but it was enough to block the removal. (I'm still bitter about that gnats port) > I don't know how you effectively determine that a port must die, Look at the ports history. If it has not had a maintainer in years, and the only commits to it are infrastructure changes and it's several releases behind, that's generally a port that people want to do. Especially if the previous maintainer was reset or just quit. The logs give a good idea of how many PRs there were and how much interest it had in it's history. It's pretty obvious when nobody has interest. > how you have determined (exactly) how many ports I am capable of (effectively) maintaining. well, pretty much the same as anyone else. 50? But my point was more -- you've actually said you wanted to continue development on certain ports so I'd lower the number. At some number of ports, people drop behind on the release updates, handing PRs, etc. There is a ceiling. I'm worried about anyone with over 100 because any given day they can send in a request to drop all their ports. > But I can assure you, I give reasonable consideration to those ports I > *choose* to maintain. That might indeed be the case, but I would be lying if I said I understand every selection you've made. And I've successfully talked you out of some of them! Anyway, in this case I thought the request was quite aggressive. The port had only been broken for a couple of days and it had an active maintainer that hadn't indicated he was looking to give it up. And it was quite easy to find the new location by going to home page, it only took about 20 seconds. Anyway, we've talked poor martin's ear off by now... -- 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-IqmdFU2QRq>