From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 27 07:15:47 2011 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 92C631065677 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:15:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from corky1951@comcast.net) Received: from qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.17]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 561EF8FC13 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:15:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.90]) by qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id cXEc1g0021wpRvQ5AXFnnm; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:15:47 +0000 Received: from comcast.net ([98.203.142.76]) by omta18.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id cXFl1g0011f6R9u3eXFl63; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:15:47 +0000 Received: by comcast.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:15:43 -0700 Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 00:15:43 -0700 From: Charlie Kester To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20110427071543.GD73524@comcast.net> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <20110427014343.GJ38579@comcast.net> <20110427060917.GB73524@comcast.net> <4DB7B75C.7080902@marino.st> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DB7B75C.7080902@marino.st> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Mailer: Mutt 1.4.2.3i X-Composer: Vim 7.3 Subject: Re: Dropping maintainership of my ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 07:15:47 -0000 On Tue 26 Apr 2011 at 23:27:40 PDT John Marino wrote: > >You're just sulking because your idea of identifying popular ports >wasn't met with enthusiasm. > No, it's more than that. I got the distinct impression that many of the committers would be unhappy if I took maintainership of some of the ports I might identify as "popular", because it would interfere with their plans to trim the portstree. Re-read the thread. At every point I'm talking about looking for ports I (and others) might want to maintain, as a service to their users. Now ask yourself why I've been getting so much resistance to that, when we keep hearing how deprecated ports can be easily resurrected if someone steps up to maintain them? Every response from the committers ignored what I said I was trying to do, and instead repeated the same old arguments about stale, unfetchable, broken or superceded ports. That "talking points" response tells me that they didn't want me doing what I was doing to buck an already-established policy of letting unmaintained ports die unless and until someone complains. Today wasn't the first time I've had this discussion with them. But it was the last straw as far as I'm concerned.