From nobody Fri Nov 19 22:44:57 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1814189FA36 for ; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 22:45:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=DF6y=QG=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (elsa.codelab.cz [94.124.105.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4HwsF02MP6z4fmh; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 22:45:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=DF6y=QG=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz) Received: from elsa.codelab.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9682842B; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 23:44:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from illbsd.quip.test (ip-78-45-215-131.net.upcbroadband.cz [78.45.215.131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by elsa.codelab.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9075828411; Fri, 19 Nov 2021 23:44:58 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: Regarding port(s) you maintain in FreeBSD ports collection To: Daniel Engberg , "Mikhail T." Cc: "freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG" References: <9524a144672a383530187ed7369acea9@FreeBSD.org> From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Message-ID: <6f098ce8-0361-543a-b480-83a147fa98a1@quip.cz> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2021 23:44:57 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9524a144672a383530187ed7369acea9@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4HwsF02MP6z4fmh X-Spamd-Bar: + Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of "SRS0=DF6y=QG=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz" has no SPF policy when checking 94.124.105.4) smtp.mailfrom="SRS0=DF6y=QG=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz" X-Spamd-Result: default: False [1.79 / 15.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.41)[0.413]; TAGGED_RCPT(0.00)[ports]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[quip.cz]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(1.00)[1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.82)[-0.819]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[000.fbsd@quip.cz,SRS0=DF6y=QG=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:42000, ipnet:94.124.104.0/21, country:CZ]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[000.fbsd@quip.cz,SRS0=DF6y=QG=quip.cz=000.fbsd@elsa.codelab.cz]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[78.45.215.131:received] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N On 16/11/2021 22:46, Daniel Engberg wrote: > Hi Mikhail, > > There are numerous of reason why we need to remove ports, one major > reason is simply to have a sustainable repository. One example is the > deprecation of Python 2.x which is long overdue but we're slowly getting > there because there still are a few crucial pieces of software that > depends on it such as Chromium. What is sustainable repository? And why having "old" software in the ports tree makes it unsustainable? I am personally using software with latest release from 2009 and it still works, still is buildable on today's FreeBSD and is still useful. Why remove it? And with Python 2.7, Chromium and other ports, it is one of a few points where I really hate decision of portmgr team because some ports where immediately marked and expired and removed a year ago because of dependency on Python 2.7 but some (Chromium) are still there even if all of them use Python 2.7 for build. For example Iridium expired 2020-12-31, Falkon is marked expired 2021-06-23 but Chromium? Nothing, like it is not depending on the same Python 2.7. This disparity ****** me off. regards Miroslav Lachman