From owner-svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 27 14:12:34 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id BAB7E20D; Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:12:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:12:34 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: marino@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r347539 - in head: biology/genpak biology/rasmol cad/chipmunk databases/typhoon databases/xmbase-grok devel/asl devel/flick devel/happydoc devel/ixlib devel/p5-Penguin-Easy editors/axe ... Message-ID: <20140327141234.GA30833@FreeBSD.org> References: <201403082226.s28MQMtI079354@svn.freebsd.org> <20140327111602.GA57802@FreeBSD.org> <20140327125909.6b102c8d@nemysis3now> <20140327125136.GC93483@FreeBSD.org> <5334201D.8060704@marino.st> <20140327131819.GE93483@FreeBSD.org> <53342633.2090409@marino.st> <20140327134531.GA16245@FreeBSD.org> <53342D12.5060600@marino.st> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <53342D12.5060600@marino.st> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Rusmir Dusko , Antoine Brodin , svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 14:12:34 -0000 On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 02:52:18PM +0100, John Marino wrote: > Well, one good reason would be if the port is not staged. I got the > idea that you expect random committers to stage the remaining ports, > maintained or not. I don't see a problem with random committers staging the remaining ports. It would be nicer if maintainers would do that themselves, of course. But I don't see how's this relevant here: all ports will end up staged sooner or later, by maintainers or not. > I think it's perfectly legitimate to look at an unmaintained port that > needs staging and say, "You know what? it's not worth it, nobody cares > about it, just set it to deprecate and kill it. Why should *I* care > about this port if nobody else in 12 years has cared about it. I think it makes more sense to first try to stage it; most likely it will be simple enough. If it's not, you're in your right to deprecate it. > Since most of your argument is about how these ports are useful to you, > I'd recommend that you review the "deprecated" post on a month basis and > claim the deprecated ports that you care about. Yes, it's one of the items on my TODO list: unbreak and undeprecate, but I probably won't claim maintainership for reasons I've given before. ./danfe