Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:09:35 +0000 From: Rene Ladan <rene@freebsd.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 46b4854f7068 - main - science/paraview: remove LAS support Message-ID: <ZczlvxG_0FtF3Dr5@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <Zcu_-H_snpXCUspk@graf.pompo.net> References: <202402111603.41BG3Kx7025229@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <ZcrmOwlEH3MBM1Fl@FreeBSD.org> <Zcu_-H_snpXCUspk@graf.pompo.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 13, 2024 at 08:16:08PM +0100, Thierry Thomas wrote: > Le mar. 13 févr. 24 à 4:47:07 +0100, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> > écrivait : > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2024 at 04:03:20PM +0000, Thierry Thomas wrote: > > > commit 46b4854f7068098ea9498e97604a6d724656fa95 > > > > > > science/paraview: remove LAS support > > > > > > Even though libLAS is still functional, it is scheduled to be removed. > > > > If it's functional, then why remove it? Deprecation notice says that > > upstream no longer continuing but the latest commit on their GitHub repo > > was last month. > > Agreed! > > I’d like portmgr to write a policy about ports deprecation / removal. > > The case of devel/liblas is a very good example: > - no known vulnerability; > - upstream still exists and the tarball is fetchable; > - it is used as a dependency by other ports. > > They even marked ParaView, an important port, to be removed just because > it used libLAS as a dependency: this is not acceptable! For the record, marking ParaView deprecated was only with my personal hat on, not that of portmgr. René
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ZczlvxG_0FtF3Dr5>