From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sat May 16 09:21:26 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BCBB2EB11F for ; Sat, 16 May 2020 09:21:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from se@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49PKXQ2HNdz49BM; Sat, 16 May 2020 09:21:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from se@freebsd.org) Received: from Stefans-MacBook-Pro-449.fritz.box (p200300cd5f25d600e1ee2acd8656e83a.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [IPv6:2003:cd:5f25:d600:e1ee:2acd:8656:e83a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: se/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C300E446D; Sat, 16 May 2020 09:21:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from se@freebsd.org) Subject: Re: Are broken ports retested before performing scheduled removal? To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Stefan Ehmann , "Edward Sanford Sutton, III" References: <15810795.vxEf1mJfsr@walrus.pepperland> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Stefan_E=c3=9fer?= Autocrypt: addr=se@freebsd.org; keydata= mQENBFVxiRIBCADOLNOZBsqlplHUQ3tG782FNtVT33rQli9EjNt2fhFERHIo4NxHlWBpHLnU b0s4L/eItx7au0i7Gegv01A9LUMwOnAc9EFAm4EW3Wmoa6MYrcP7xDClohg/Y69f7SNpEs3x YATBy+L6NzWZbJjZXD4vqPgZSDuMcLU7BEdJf0f+6h1BJPnGuwHpsSdnnMrZeIM8xQ8PPUVQ L0GZkVojHgNUngJH6e21qDrud0BkdiBcij0M3TCP4GQrJ/YMdurfc8mhueLpwGR2U1W8TYB7 4UY+NLw0McThOCLCxXflIeF/Y7jSB0zxzvb/H3LWkodUTkV57yX9IbUAGA5RKRg9zsUtABEB AAG0J1N0ZWZhbiBFw59lciAoRnJlZUJTRCkgPHNlQGZyZWVic2Qub3JnPokBVAQTAQoAPgIb AwULCQgHAwUVCgkICwUWAwIBAAIeAQIXgBYhBKNx6mWcC+zIK3FTE0frte9a/fVEBQJa8u+q BQkLJQETAAoJEEfrte9a/fVEOeMH/icmdK1eZQvB3U8quJo9VMaZsaTuCMbUE4NThyfsIvIm MCd+rb/yULmMYwqNfjyKB1x4ikR4x+94l+yJoz7K0Usks+eNKDmMGJM6pWWssTigaJubFdVd hVVC+C1QJi7JshYSib08uONoPmO4lv5Az0TDYGtsMzsES2sIlc62c9go5WPGYhQFRbX3Lk6y V6m8OHh+G9XGSj3oPO4UteRwu+SzTdOLunZBWG1wu34+IeZm663D+2gOppQLWpLa2qaTerqw THu377ayZ2B2LPJ5JkvkZeHYPkwDQ+b5PGn0UhfkxPnDVYki5F7qKxvQ5uq1/q9YaCX7mmOl H2yO7tgVsrW5AQ0EVXGJEgEIALEj9qCXMZVucjpcd3QxM/TlUr98m5viEd1z4tCnPUyRWcIC EVtj2h5xMH+2iB0q1+KWhq+NsWtvScmEmfHnsr7dJ1K677OdpDhKVaJk61eeRulFY1R4yb6C 1MMxK+WgYB+vvpG0UeyR0M4uBewcPvRsq4yGUHFQKtLAbMdoPTSryJA+ElnmK1vdY+rPcHgi OIMBZM7ahsPXC0C9K4e5SP9clGyIoMpbfHXdx9q+Rp3zVtlbhyk3BS/xccu/+9pk9ICXL6GR js2sNnJ0wxdU1DsAlC59a5MnSruwiZFwRnkQhr3x6wk97Lg7sLS9jjTnCN7LGlVmSmpOEMy6 uq1AWfUAEQEAAYkBPAQYAQoAJgIbDBYhBKNx6mWcC+zIK3FTE0frte9a/fVEBQJa8u+rBQkL JQEZAAoJEEfrte9a/fVEuesH/2DNxGWnHvWwMyiyhlQtafvDKwEn/wAgR8gHJFodB7emf8rA TnukH7MVttCoHtjN5lvv9RSBHjNTZls5wR/ANlwdRuPQHd8ZGxLe3S6IuUB3zDSwFltLGurO N2kOMhs5mTGyypSa+uw3rtQbUAVYf1oPbiR4FLtiM8FLyEvE95hX5fPq9Qvx9FmN79kmCIEw jDKPqDaUf/OR2fEF0LSIbXHEk4tNqCEwx5DIJ0fp5/z5UzICUAmwxyRs5O/Hre1jzPsMVyud Ml9t7UTOJGKVWwRory1PMnOFxN+iz5/d4FhYSKXF7kfMiFgol4LuWaxJRwbBrr71VGBrRy2a L1nw6Bc= Message-ID: Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 11:21:22 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <15810795.vxEf1mJfsr@walrus.pepperland> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 May 2020 09:21:26 -0000 Am 16.05.20 um 10:44 schrieb Stefan Ehmann: > On Thursday, May 14, 2020 1:24:17 AM CEST Edward Sanford Sutton, III wrote: >> games/oneko was recently removed as it was marked broken due to being >> unfetchable. I tried an old copy of the ports tree I had where it was >> marked as such and `make fetch -DTRYBROKEN` succeeded. Was there an >> error recorded for this and was it ever retested? Is this just a side >> effect of having a failure and no maintainer? >> If being removed as unfetchable, wouldn't a better MOVED entry be to >> say it was unfetchable (for more than 6 months) instead of just broken >> for more than 6 months? >> Thanks for feedback > > I've recently asked myself the same question: > > multimedia/gpac-mp4box is flagged > BROKEN=unfetchable > DEPRECATED=Broken for more than 6 months > > multimedia/gpac-libgpac uses the same distfile from the same mirror and is not > marked broken. > > I figured once a port is marked unfetchable, it will be deleted, even it is a > transient failure. Of course, unless someone opens a bug report. I have also had to resurrect ports that had been deleted as unfetchable (and which were prerequisites of ports I was working on) and found that they were either available from the MASTER_SITE given in the port (i.e., have most probably been only temporarily unavailablet) or had been moved to Github (or some other repository) and now have better accessibility than before, after an update of the ports' master sites. IMHO, it shows disrespect to the creator or maintainer of a port, if it is marked broken and deleted, in such a case, especially since there is no guarantee that the maintainer receives a notification for ports marked broken (for any reason, often easily fixed, but noted only when the port is deleted if the maintainer has no need to update or rebuild it during the time of deprecation). Regards, STefan