Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 12:26:11 +0300 From: Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 6625db5156c3 - main - x11-wm/peksystray: undeprecate the port, assume maintainership Message-ID: <CALH631=yowSYgXOEHzV1Lgmf208T1oKQmzhMjep%2Bg6CET49KLw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <ZaZIpgebu-Rpu_ho@FreeBSD.org> References: <202401160802.40G82DWH096008@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <CALH631n1ekeSj6F2um3ceFXDUSj5Y4T9sq3PvXterQA37nvj7A@mail.gmail.com> <ZaY-7V09PBVS1CHu@FreeBSD.org> <CALH631=gBRqs7HJ%2Bj9796COymhHj%2BA54H-QvyQc3FCPHi5UtfA@mail.gmail.com> <ZaZIpgebu-Rpu_ho@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 12:13=E2=80=AFPM Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.or= g> wrote: > > Weight? It weighs nearly nothing and requires minimal maintenance. > Good software can work for ages without any updates and has the right > to be ported so long as it works and being useful; anything else is > much less relevant (yes, including upstream care/support). This is true for your lone-wolf-committer context, but not portmgr context. It has been explained many times that portmgr has to do giant sweeping changes to thousands of ports and this is where all these "easy" and "light" ports pile up a giant roadblock. This burden lies down solely on portmgr's shoulders as it is unrealistic to wait for hundreds of port maintainers to collaborate on a single branch and fix their ports before landing the change. I agree with you on the "as long it is being useful" part, but we need to refine what "useful" means. It is not some abstract potential usefulness in a future, but a "real" one. Real users should exist right now to justify the port's existence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALH631=yowSYgXOEHzV1Lgmf208T1oKQmzhMjep%2Bg6CET49KLw>