From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Sep 30 16:51:57 2007
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id 101E516A41B; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:51:57 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:51:57 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20070930165156.GA53297@FreeBSD.org>
References: <200709272240.l8RMe9H0083769@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<46FE2FD4.4000805@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46FE2FD4.4000805@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org,
	Martin Wilke <miwi@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: Criteria for deprecating ports (Re: cvs commit:
	ports/x11-wm/clementine Makefile)
X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree <cvs-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:51:57 -0000

On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 12:58:28PM +0200, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Martin Wilke wrote:
> >miwi        2007-09-27 22:40:09 UTC
> >
> >  FreeBSD ports repository
> >
> >  Modified files:
> >    x11-wm/clementine    Makefile 
> >  Log:
> >  - Marked deprecated (Project is dead, last release from 2002)
> >  
> >  Revision  Changes    Path
> >  1.13      +3 -0      ports/x11-wm/clementine/Makefile
> >
> >
> 
> To pick a commit at random...
> 
> I am unsure about the wisdom of this.  Not every piece of code needs 
> regular releases to remain relevant.  I think you should be taking other 
> factors into account, notably "is the software still relevant and useful 
> for its intended purpose" and "is it stable and usable"?

+1.  While it could be a good idea to mark those ports as deprecated (in
most cases, it's true) but there could be vivid users of those.  FWIW,
setting expiration date for unbroken and unforbidden ports is not I've
seen done in the past.  If there's no problem with some port, why remove
it only because it's old?  May I ask you to back-out EXPIRATION_DATE tags,
please?

Thanks.

./danfe