Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 23:12:22 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Sam Lawrance <boris@brooknet.com.au> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Update or remove Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0502192303520.3855-100000@pancho> In-Reply-To: <1108816911.670.42.camel@dirk.no.domain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Sam Lawrance wrote: > In my trawl through unmaintained port fetch errors, I'm coming across > more and more libraries in a similar state - old, unfetchable, and > unused by the rest of the tree. General guidance appreciated. I think > it's better to nuke them and save the maintenance effort for other > stuff. Should I just rack up a list and post them here later? There is no consensus. Some committers seem to think that since they aren't harming anything there's no reason to remove them. Others seem to think that since they've disappeared that it means that it is time to remove them. I lean more towards the latter, personally, but I suspect I'm in the minority on this one. I think the issue is a little clearer if there is both a version 1.x and 2.x in the tree and all the dependencies in INDEX are for 2.x -- but be careful, you really need to grep over ports/*/*/Makefile for cases where the 1.x version is a _conditional_ dependency based on the value of certain knobs. We've been burned on this in the past. I guess if we ever fix the fetching for all the ports that _are_ current dependencies, then we can figure out what to do with these :-) But in any case they should probably go through the usual N-week cycle where they're marked DEPRECATED and so forth, so people get a chance to speak up and say if they are still using them. This is not to say we don't appreciate your work on flagging all these unfetchable ports that you've been doing, btw, because we certainly do. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.44.0502192303520.3855-100000>