From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 1 07:31:03 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 505331065674 for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 07:31:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gamato@users.sf.net) Received: from smtp-out3.iol.cz (smtp-out3.iol.cz [194.228.2.91]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D625D8FC16 for ; Sun, 1 May 2011 07:31:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from antivir5.iol.cz (unknown [192.168.30.212]) by smtp-out3.iol.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6357EBC809D; Sun, 1 May 2011 07:04:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (antivir5.iol.cz [127.0.0.1]) by antivir5.iol.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51F8C1E802F; Sun, 1 May 2011 09:04:08 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at iol.cz Received: from antivir5.iol.cz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (antivir5.iol.cz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10224) with LMTP id hj45PE7u5xJE; Sun, 1 May 2011 09:04:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from port3.iol.cz (unknown [192.168.30.93]) by antivir5.iol.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E7391E8031; Sun, 1 May 2011 09:04:08 +0200 (CEST) X-SBRS: None X-SBRS-none: None X-RECVLIST: MTA-OUT-IOL X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AowSAMgEvU1asinI/2dsb2JhbAAMhT3lQ4YABI55jiQ Received: from 200.41.broadband11.iol.cz (HELO [192.168.11.3]) ([90.178.41.200]) by port3.iol.cz with ESMTP; 01 May 2011 09:04:07 +0200 Message-ID: <4DBD05EF.9040700@users.sf.net> Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 09:04:15 +0200 From: mato User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.9.1.18) Gecko/20110424 SeaMonkey/2.0.13 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Jeremy References: <20110317091244.GA17060@lonesome.com> <20110426004649.GG10901@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20110426004649.GG10901@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Deprecation campaign X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 May 2011 07:31:03 -0000 Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2011-Apr-26 02:02:02 +0200, martinko 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.