From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 6 02:13:57 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B49A106566B for ; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 02:13:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from 172-17-198-245.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670B914DDC7; Tue, 6 Sep 2011 02:13:55 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4E6581E2.1060502@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 19:13:54 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:6.0.1) Gecko/20110901 Thunderbird/6.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: perryh@pluto.rain.com References: <201109050933.p859XEbP004874@fire.js.berklix.net> <4E64C35A.50004@FreeBSD.org> <4e65b42e.M5K+to11vAdk/UTk%perryh@pluto.rain.com> In-Reply-To: <4e65b42e.M5K+to11vAdk/UTk%perryh@pluto.rain.com> X-Enigmail-Version: undefined OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org, jhs@berklix.com, utisoft@gmail.com Subject: Re: sysutils/cfs 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, 06 Sep 2011 02:13:57 -0000 On 09/05/2011 22:48, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote: > Doug Barton wrote: >> On 09/05/2011 02:33, Julian H. Stacey wrote: >>>>> It is not responsible to threaten to remove ports without >>>>> warning between releases for non urgent reasons. >> >> We understand that this is your perspective, however the community >> in general has a different idea. > > I suppose it may depend on how one defines "the community". > > AFAIK there are maybe half a dozen or so developers who have > recently put themselves on record as supporting the current, > agressive deprecation campaign. The number who have posted in > opposition may well be smaller, so you are probably right if "the > community" is defined as consisting only of those two groups :) I don't. There have indeed been a few highly vocal individuals who have opposed the idea of deprecating/removing anything. In contrast you have a larger number of committers who are actively involved in attempting to improve the situation, and a larger number who are silently supporting the program. In addition you have a much larger number of people who actively discuss the topic in #bsdports. Currently there are 135 people in there, the majority of whom are active ports maintainers. So I'm defining "the community" as the vast majority of people who are actively working on supporting FreeBSD ports. >>>>> Better to deprecate such non urgent ports, & wait a while >>>>> after next release is rolled, to give release users a warning >>>>> & some time to volunteer ... >> >> That's an interesting idea, but incredibly unlikely to happen. > > It _certainly_ won't happen if those in charge refuse to try it! My point was that the idea is impractical. I was trying to be polite. > My *guess* is that "the largest percentage of our users" are what > Julian calls "release users" -- those who install a release and > corresponding ports, and don't touch it subsequently until they > become aware of a problem. They _may_ follow the security branch > for their base release, but that won't make them aware of issues > that have turned up in ports. For security issues we have portaudit to handle this. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/