From nobody Wed Feb 28 21:27:40 2024 X-Original-To: ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TlSBF5MPDz5CRTS for ; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 21:27:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portmaster@bsdforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (udns.ultimatedns.net [24.113.41.81]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "ultimatedns.net", Issuer "R3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TlSBD3fGjz4dvr; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 21:27:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from portmaster@bsdforge.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: from ultimatedns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTP id 41SLReXh098572; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 13:27:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from portmaster@bsdforge.com) List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 13:27:40 -0800 From: Chris To: Florian Smeets Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposed ports deprecation and removal policy In-Reply-To: <435edf7c-a956-4317-b327-3372de70dbef@FreeBSD.org> References: <435edf7c-a956-4317-b327-3372de70dbef@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: UDNSMS/17.0 Message-ID: <3fa7a01e106818b41c494f993037d931@bsdforge.com> X-Sender: portmaster@bsdforge.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11404, ipnet:24.113.0.0/16, country:US] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4TlSBD3fGjz4dvr On 2024-02-28 11:22, Florian Smeets wrote: > Dear ports community, > > as the removal of ports is a recurring source of friction and dispute we > would > like to add a ports removal and deprecation policy to the porters handbook. > > We tried to find a sensible middle ground between too fast removal and > keeping > unmaintained and abandoned upstream software in our ports tree forever. > > When can or should ports be deprecated or removed? > > This policy should give some guidance on when ports can or should be > removed. In > general ports should not be removed without reason but if a port blocks > progress > it should be deprecated and subsequently removed. In general, if a ports > blocks > progress for some time it will be removed so that progress can be made. For > more > details see below. > > > Ports can be removed immediately if one of the following conditions is met: > > - Upstream distfile is no longer available from the original source/mirror > (Our > and other distcaches e.g. Debian, Gentoo, etc do not count as "available") > - Upstream WWW is unavailable: deprecate, remove after 3 months > - BROKEN for more than 6 months > - has known vulnerabilities that weren’t addressed in the ports tree for > more than 3 months > > > A port can be deprecated and subsequently removed if: > > - Upstream declared the version EOL or officially stopped development. > DEPRECATED > should be set as soon as the planned removal date is know. (It is up to the > maintainer if they want to remove the port immediately after the EOL date or > if > they want keep the port for some time with backported patches. Option two is > *not* > possible without backporting patches, see vulnerable ports) The general > suggestion > is that EOL versions should not stay in the ports tree for more than 3 > months > without justification. > - The port does not adapt to infrastructure changes (i.e. USE_STAGE, > MANPREFIX, > compiler updates, etc.) within 6 months. Ports should be set to DEPRECATED > after 3 > months and can be removed after 6 > > > Reasons that do not warrant removal of a port: > > - Software hasn’t seen a release in a long time > - Upstream looks inactive for a long time > > Florian (on behalf of portmgr) Thank you very much for your attempt to set precedence in this area. Your proposal seems well tempered and prudent. Thank you. Consider this a "+1" from me. :) --Chris -- --Chris Hutchinson