From nobody Tue Jan 16 09:26:11 2024 X-Original-To: dev-commits-ports-all@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 4TDkDG3qbjz57FPx; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 09:26:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 6yearold@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ua1-f54.google.com (mail-ua1-f54.google.com [209.85.222.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1D4" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TDkDF6VStz4YpK; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 09:26:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from 6yearold@gmail.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: by mail-ua1-f54.google.com with SMTP id a1e0cc1a2514c-7ce9defc4c2so1388911241.0; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 01:26:53 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1705397213; x=1706002013; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=JVWqk0ORs+TPIpvdxpUQowwHcov3Qphfeb7nC8EdkRk=; b=sRwZ8K1+VhzJMZg1RVfsp4cVYQnMsQ9sl4IHL83ThZi0PxKb45Mz22taB1ipkVq59k NhwhVtabiLfZ44x+y6chbuR1htV070DNoqhMT6vUMxYDTmFqLyPHoWgajt/MTfnug3jW lTPHDuD7PBZoainrJqHGoXWd/nMa2flAuEGJPFB8UbCqLSG0QatjkKlWzybPNJiwmBXu 8HZc2ayzti2RPuPMXwImDLKZkiS2e/uFsycohmt0eYhTo9HlpXMVpnqBxF+T+FYbXSrm l1l7pVv+2WWSDC45icegCEaHidETehneQ+GCPF+WXbuapyZ/4fjNiPUwBEEtUB1tGcx5 iSAg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxMLCqGsfL3YMn+8a8U3et8UI1RlSHRMzs7tvRgsw9JKTGhAPzD QNx4uOl3AZwHUiOq4i4CdBB92mMTc+o+G0TMV30= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFVj3pIZingZSw+SugLc5UvfjmWQxL/NEUI5hesFdheCnBYBoRKz7q1EWhbS+vFQUoW2ERMPw== X-Received: by 2002:a1f:dd84:0:b0:4b7:8e59:4df3 with SMTP id u126-20020a1fdd84000000b004b78e594df3mr2036754vkg.21.1705397211331; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 01:26:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vs1-f51.google.com (mail-vs1-f51.google.com. [209.85.217.51]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id dl20-20020a056130269400b007cbbc93aba1sm550500uab.5.2024.01.16.01.26.51 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Jan 2024 01:26:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vs1-f51.google.com with SMTP id ada2fe7eead31-466fb1cbfe9so1280740137.0; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 01:26:51 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 2002:a67:b34b:0:b0:467:f76d:8910 with SMTP id b11-20020a67b34b000000b00467f76d8910mr2571925vsm.7.1705397211018; Tue, 16 Jan 2024 01:26:51 -0800 (PST) List-Id: Commit messages for all branches of the ports repository List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/dev-commits-ports-all List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202401160802.40G82DWH096008@gitrepo.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: From: Gleb Popov Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2024 12:26:11 +0300 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: git: 6625db5156c3 - main - x11-wm/peksystray: undeprecate the port, assume maintainership To: Alexey Dokuchaev Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4TDkDF6VStz4YpK 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:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US] On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 12:13=E2=80=AFPM Alexey Dokuchaev 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.