Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:15:54 -0400 From: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: saving a few ports from death Message-ID: <20110426181554.6ddd9393@seibercom.net> In-Reply-To: <4DB73EFD.1070502@FreeBSD.org> References: <ip53jn$92d$1@dough.gmane.org> <4DB6165F.1010806@FreeBSD.org> <20110426024122.GA38579@comcast.net> <A9C17565-97D8-43F1-9CF7-8CFC79EFEA7B@FreeBSD.org> <20110426163424.GB38579@comcast.net> <20110426141209.0d07bccf@seibercom.net> <20110426184315.GA2320@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> <19895.13977.553973.609431@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <4DB73EFD.1070502@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:54:05 -0700 Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> articulated: > On 04/26/2011 14:18, Robert Huff wrote: > > It is also possible it is only important to a fairly small > > number ... but to those it is absolutely crucial. > > Fair enough, then one of them needs to step forward to maintain the > port. :) > > FWIW, I think that the person who suggested deleting the port as a > way to gain a metric of its popularity was joking ... Sorry, but I was dead serious. "Don't Know What You Got (Till It's Gone)" "Cinderella" If no one steps up claiming to need the port, then good riddance. If on the other hand a user claims a valid use of the port, let them take responsibility for it or find someone who will. Leaving intact ports that either don't build, cannot be fetched, etcetera does not really make a lot of sense. -- Jerry ✌ jerry+ports@seibercom.net Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110426181554.6ddd9393>