From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Oct 24 15:51:15 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4A8DC1F229 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:51:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [192.108.105.60]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.soaustin.net", Issuer "StartCom Class 2 IV Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AC38D377 for ; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:51:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from lonesome.com (bones.soaustin.net [192.108.105.22]) by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A96A716D; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:51:12 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:51:11 -0500 From: Mark Linimon To: "Mikhail T." Cc: Kurt Jaeger , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: misc/jive deleted Message-ID: <20161024155111.GB15256@lonesome.com> References: <20161022024510.7cvnhc2fdh7h7arh@ozzmosis.com> <20161022092738.GA5690@lonesome.com> <14ff8102-d360-507e-a03b-2ed07b4a5823@aldan.algebra.com> <20161023160352.GX51420@home.opsec.eu> <8a01de23-0e4a-b7d9-cd3b-d6e1e4f44c3f@aldan.algebra.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8a01de23-0e4a-b7d9-cd3b-d6e1e4f44c3f@aldan.algebra.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:51:15 -0000 On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 03:56:07PM -0400, Mikhail T. wrote: > Technically, the only reason to remove a port is due to a failure to > build -- and that hasn't happened. Or: - expired, replaced by newer version - unfetchable - license does not allow anyone to package it - author requested(*) removal I have personally removed ports fitting each of these criteria at various times. I am sure I am missing some other criterion as well. So, your claim is simply false. mcl (*) ok, in one case, it was actually a demand, with the threat of legal action appended.