Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 07:04:31 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> To: Stanislav Sedov <stas@deglitch.com> Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org, Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru> Subject: Re: Recent ports removal Message-ID: <20111113200431.GA89348@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20111111124012.3ec48cb3.stas@deglitch.com> References: <20111109124325.17efc0d1.stas@deglitch.com> <20111109222435.GD92221@azathoth.lan> <20111110110637.GA3514@hades.panopticon> <4EBCC587.10701@FreeBSD.org> <20111111100708.GA24126@hades.panopticon> <20111111124012.3ec48cb3.stas@deglitch.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2011-Nov-11 12:40:12 -0800, Stanislav Sedov <stas@deglitch.com> wrote: >Because portmgr@ is using it? There're numerous cases when unmaintained, = buggy, >vulnerable and plainly dangerous stuff stays in tree because someone in po= rtmgr >gang likes it when other applications not used by them being removed witho= ut >prior discussion notice. Because your opinion doesn't matter. Neither is= mine. I am getting heartily tired of your continuous tirade against the portmgr@ community. Please provide evidence to backup your accusations or retract them. As for the removal of obsolete ports - it has been made perfectly clear on many occasions that a MAINTAINER of ports@ means that port is _not_ maintained. If it's a port you use, feel free to take over maintainership. Otherwise that port is subject to removal if any problems with it crop up. --=20 Peter Jeremy --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk7AIs8ACgkQ/opHv/APuIc+mwCcDGJmhQgLPoeYl/bfP/IGNEyf 4MEAn2khGQFYP1LGHl/7ugaWO7FizC6G =COq2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --a8Wt8u1KmwUX3Y2C--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111113200431.GA89348>