Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:34:04 +0000 From: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@tx.rr.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dead projects in ports tree Message-ID: <5282E09CCA57B5914BF69048@utd65257.utdallas.edu> In-Reply-To: <20090302223600.GD29616@redundancy.redundancy.org> References: <7d6fde3d0902281509v6a98521as618421daf52b3abe@mail.gmail.com> <7d6fde3d0902281605u2a251513q44ccfc0c8226c9fd@mail.gmail.com> <20090302223600.GD29616@redundancy.redundancy.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On Monday, March 02, 2009 16:36:38 -0600 "David E. Thiel" <lx@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > 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. I completely agree. So long as a port is being used and people find it useful, I think it would be a mistake to remove those ports. In fact I suspect it wouldn't be long before someone was submitting a PR to reinstate the port. Perfect example is converters/unix2dos, last updated in 2003 and converters/mpack, last updated in 2006. I still use both, and I would be irritated if they were removed from ports. A lack of development activity != a lack of usefulness -- Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. ******************************************* Check the headers before clicking on Reply.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5282E09CCA57B5914BF69048>