Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 19:38:08 +1100 From: Kubilay Kocak <koobs@FreeBSD.org> To: marino@freebsd.org, Martin Wilke <miwi.fbsd@gmail.com> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, "svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org" <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, "svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org" <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r407270 - head/ports-mgmt/portmaster Message-ID: <56A881F0.4040103@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <56A87EC8.7060401@marino.st> References: <201601261123.u0QBNcvL091258@repo.freebsd.org> <CAFY%2ByEkOv9-JaJv45WF-GzTxOiFh6k8sZ4rysUS5xTZs=rWNrA@mail.gmail.com> <56A86CAD.7030507@marino.st> <56A8747E.5080703@FreeBSD.org> <56A87EC8.7060401@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 27/01/2016 7:24 PM, John Marino wrote: > On 1/27/2016 8:40 AM, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >> On 27/01/2016 6:07 PM, John Marino wrote: >>> As I said previously, this commit does not do anything except warn the >>> user about portmaster so they are aware of the serious performance and >>> maintenance issues that it has. There is no expiration date. >> >> This statement is false. The change also adds a recommendation >> preferentially for a particular replacement for both tier one architectures. >> >> Given you are the author of the recommended package, this is biased at >> best, if not a conflict of interest. > > Wait, so you are saying we should tell people things are deprecated > without recommendations about what to do about it? No, that is not what was claimed. What was said (as per the quoted text above), was that the recommendation was preferential, biased at best, if not a conflict of interest. Nowhere does it say or claim that recommendations should not be provided. > >> >> I find no issue with notifying users that portmaster is *currently* >> unmaintained and has open issues, and that support can't *currently* be >> provided for it. >> >> However, I don't believe we ought take actions that hasten its demise. >> In fact, I believe a statement to the effect that we *want* someone to >> take maintainership in order to avoid further bitrot would be worthwhile. > > 1) Given as Adam said, that this port is DOCUMENTED in the handbook, it > NEVER should have been allowed to be unmaintained. The day Bryan > dropped maintainership (of which I do not blame him), that's the day the > handbook should have been modified. Maybe not the same day, but I agree in principle. > 2) this port does not need a maintainer, it needs a DEVELOPER. Nit picking, since both previous maintainers also developed it. But yes, agreed, it would need a 'developer' to 'maintain it'. > 3) given #2, group maintainership is not an option and frankly anyone > that claims this port needs to prove they have to skills to address any > issue. Ok. > 4) Actually there is a non-signficant faction that would very much like > to see portmaster dead, mainly for the reasons 1-3. Digression from the main issue and irrelevant to why people have responded to this change. >> >> Given what the term 'deprecated' implies, I would use a pre-everything: >> message instead. >> > > Anyone arguing pro-portmaster needs to be prepared to take up > maintainership AFTER claiming and resolving all the open bug reports. Anyone appearing to be 'pro-portmaster' in this thread is actually distracting from the main issue being raised. But yes, anyone who wants to keep it around, ought to attempt to figure out ways to make it better. Also, it's perfectly possible to not want a port DEPRECATED, and not be 'pro' that-port. > John >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56A881F0.4040103>