From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 13 16:44:40 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 0A14B1065675 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:44:40 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from matthias.andree@gmx.de) Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 566668FC0C for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:44:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2011 16:44:37 -0000 Received: from g230103014.adsl.alicedsl.de (EHLO mandree.no-ip.org) [92.230.103.14] by mail.gmx.net (mp071) with SMTP; 13 Sep 2011 18:44:37 +0200 X-Authenticated: #428038 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1827e4ImI42JYxAwjPxT6X+O3XtA+wpdxsmaFfJiB rbmIJN80iW1usC Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by apollo.emma.line.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2BE723D34E; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:44:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4E6F8873.5070403@gmx.de> Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:44:35 +0200 From: Matthias Andree User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.21) Gecko/20110831 Mnenhy/0.8.3 Thunderbird/3.1.13 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Julian H. Stacey" References: <201109122058.p8CKwhZS095221@fire.js.berklix.net> In-Reply-To: <201109122058.p8CKwhZS095221@fire.js.berklix.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: deprecated because: Development has ceased??? Maybe development is *complete* 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: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:44:40 -0000 Am 12.09.2011 22:58, schrieb Julian H. Stacey: >> If the author of another package stated that maintenance ceased, that is >> no longer the case. Any why let port users fall into this pit? They > > You advocate digging the pit. The hole where the ports was. Nonsense. It's a wanton exaggeration of someone - you - running out of objective arguments. If you'd looked at how I've removed the ports that I have removed, you know that I spent considerable amounts of time to find suitable solutions for all users (usually dependent ports). This included porting applications to DB 4.X myself so I could remove db2 and db3, working with other maintainers so we could move lzo users to lzo2, and thereabouts. Of course that is separate from the policy discussion, and my stance is clear. Even if we were to kill all deprecated ports now we'd have more than 20,000 to choose from. Keeping explosive garbage around just in case someone might want to blast his feet away with isn't maintenance, quality, or useful. We don't lose ports along that deprecation way that users would cheer about, else we'd have a lot of shouting going on already after the earlier deprecation rounds that have been run already.