From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 2 23:32:59 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79DC4106564A for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 23:32:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from beech@freebsd.org) Received: from bsdevel.akherb.com (bsdevel.akherb.com [208.86.224.193]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50DCA8FC1D for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 23:32:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from beech@freebsd.org) Received: from stargate.akherb.com (163-146-42-72.gci.net [72.42.146.163]) by bsdevel.akherb.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8DB28E10E7; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 23:32:58 +0000 (UTC) From: Beech Rintoul Organization: FreeBSD To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 14:32:57 -0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.11.0 (FreeBSD/8.0-CURRENT; KDE/4.2.0; i386; ; ) References: <7d6fde3d0902281509v6a98521as618421daf52b3abe@mail.gmail.com> <7d6fde3d0902281605u2a251513q44ccfc0c8226c9fd@mail.gmail.com> <20090302223600.GD29616@redundancy.redundancy.org> In-Reply-To: <20090302223600.GD29616@redundancy.redundancy.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200903021432.57825.beech@freebsd.org> Cc: "David E. Thiel" Subject: Re: Dead projects in ports tree X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: akbeech@gmail.com List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:33:00 -0000 On Monday 02 March 2009 13:36:38 David E. Thiel wrote: > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 04:05:56PM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote: > > > multimedia/openquicktime - no movement in CVS / SVN for 1+ years; no > > > releases in the past 3 years > > > > > > =A0 =A0I'll continue posting more items to this thread as I find them= =2E.. > > > Thanks, > > > -Garrett > > > > xmms looks completely dead now. Can someone confirm or deny this fact? > > While I'm in favor of removing useless ports, there are several projects > which are simply "done", and lack of development doesn't mean they're > obsolete or useless. The logic above would seem to suggest we should > remove qmail too. I would like to hear what people feel the best method > for getting rid of unused and irrelevant ports, though -- bump > portrevision and mark BROKEN for a few months? This opens up a huge can of worms. One user's favorite port is another user= 's=20 crap. The general rule of thumb is if the port is unmaintained and abandonw= are=20 (website gone, not fetchable etc) then it should be marked DEPRECATED with = a=20 date a month or so out. Most of these ports are also mirrored by FreeBSD if= =20 they aren't restricted. Any port that has been broken for >6 months are=20 usually removed. Portmgr usually handles this area and it's generally a goo= d=20 idea to contact them regarding any of these ports. Beech =2D-=20 =2D------------------------------------------------------------------------= =2D------------- Beech Rintoul - FreeBSD Developer - beech@FreeBSD.org /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | FreeBSD Since 4.x \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail | http://people.freebsd.org/~beech X - NO Word docs in e-mail | Skype: akbeech / \ - http://www.FreeBSD.org/releases/7.1R/announce.html =2D------------------------------------------------------------------------= =2D-------------