Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 09:04:15 +0200 From: mato <gamato@users.sf.net> To: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Deprecation campaign Message-ID: <4DBD05EF.9040700@users.sf.net> In-Reply-To: <20110426004649.GG10901@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <AANLkTinxZmVDX8yU7S6bAoBnSzzzobBN%2B64XJBapP=bA@mail.gmail.com> <20110317091244.GA17060@lonesome.com> <ip521q$30h$1@dough.gmane.org> <20110426004649.GG10901@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2011-Apr-26 02:02:02 +0200, martinko<gamato@users.sf.net> wrote: > >> I understand you want to remove a port if it does not build and there is >> no one (in long time) to fix it. However, deprecating because a dist >> file moved, while port may be perfectly functional, seems a bit too >> much, imho. >> > For these ports, the port as it stands does not fetch. Someone needs > to update the port with the new distfile location - this is the > responsibility of the port's maintainer. If a port remains broken for > an extended period, it indicates that no-one cares about it any longer > and therefore no-one should miss it if it's deleted. > > >> So why would we deny them using the >> ports if all it takes is publishing the port files somewhere ? And >> since FreeBSD has the infrastructure and resources I see no issue in >> providing parking for such distfiles, especially if we believe they are >> used by minority of users. Or is there something I miss here ? >> > Who do you see as responsible for doing this? Whilst the FreeBSD > Project has resources for storing/distributing distfiles, it takes > human effort to verify that the port's license allows the FreeBSD > Project to host the distfile and to actually copy the distfile. That > person also needs to distinguish between the cases: > a) The port is up-to-date and the distfile has moved > b) The project (and hence distfile) have been renamed > c) The port is so out-of-date that the distfie has been removed > by the vendor > > Whilst the effort required for a single port may not be great, the > total effort to work through all the ports in this situation would be > substantial. This is not the task of the port committers group. > > It's up to the port's users to come up with a maintainer - if none of > a port's users are willing to put in the effort to ensure that the > port remains usable, why should the FreeBSD Project expend scarce > resources to offering that port? > > If there are ports on the deprecated list that you use, maybe it's > up to you to step up and maintain them. > > There are usually many users but only a few are ready to become maintainers (for whatever reasons). So no one stepping up does not really mean no one uses a port. But ok, I'll try to see what I can do for ports I might care about.. M.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4DBD05EF.9040700>