From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 14 03:52:51 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA3651065670; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 03:52:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com) Received: from smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.157.102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E8F8FC08; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 03:52:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mr16.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.36]) by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2011 22:52:49 -0500 Received: from smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.11]) by mr16.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 4.2.3-GA) with ESMTP id BKH21829; Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:52:49 -0500 Received-SPF: None identity=pra; client-ip=209.6.61.133; receiver=smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net; envelope-from="mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com"; x-sender="mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None identity=mailfrom; client-ip=209.6.61.133; receiver=smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net; envelope-from="mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com"; x-sender="mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: None identity=helo; client-ip=209.6.61.133; receiver=smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net; envelope-from="mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com"; x-sender="postmaster@[192.168.1.8]"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-Auth-ID: anat Received: from 209-6-61-133.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO [192.168.1.8]) ([209.6.61.133]) by smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 13 Nov 2011 22:52:48 -0500 Message-ID: <4EC09090.6070305@aldan.algebra.com> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:52:48 -0500 From: "Mikhail T." User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110926 Thunderbird/6.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ports@FreeBSD.org References: <20111109124325.17efc0d1.stas@deglitch.com> <20111109222435.GD92221@azathoth.lan> <20111110110637.GA3514@hades.panopticon> <4EBD9D25.7020406@FreeBSD.org> <4EC027D4.60808@aldan.algebra.com> <4EC0349D.9070307@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4EC0349D.9070307@FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 04:38:06 +0000 Cc: Chris Rees , Baptiste Daroussin , Doug Barton , Dmitry Marakasov Subject: Re: Recent ports removal 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: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 03:52:51 -0000 On 13.11.2011 16:20, Doug Barton wrote: > You turned a comparison of the discussion of the concept of ports > removal generally to the removal of individual ports and turned it into > an ad hominem attack on the quality of*my* reasoning. Huh? > This is an excellent example of why I, for one, don't bother replying substantively > to your messages anymore. And yet, you are going to have to... Because you are not doing your removals as an individual committer (if you were, your desire to remove a port could've been stopped by *my* desire to keep it). And as long as you imply having some sort of governing authority behind you (such as a portmgr hat -- permanent or temporary), you need to justify your actions to keep the consent of the governed. But I'm not asking you to reply to the uncivil, sarcastic, and otherwise flawed *me*. My proposal was for you and the rest of the "removers" to articulate your reasoning on a web-page. That would carry your message (calmly thought-through and edited) to all users and colleagues alike, including those too polite to question your actions publicly. Please, oblige. On 13.11.2011 16:31, Chris Rees wrote: > Oh my.... it's two months ago. Yes. And my recollection from back then is that portmgr was reviewing the issue (in the quiet of Olympus away from the noise of all the silly mortals) and was going to render their decision (eloquently and convincingly to all)... That has not happened, but the removals continue to this day... > Can we move on? Ports are deprecated and removed. > Insecure/unmaintained ports are harmful. No, we can not move on. It should, by now, be obvious to all, that there is no consensus on when a port should be removed. And yet, a fraction of the committers take it upon themselves to remove ports based on their own credentials -- much to the dissatisfaction of the opposing fraction. I fail to see, why or how the opinion of crees@ and dougb@ outweighs that of stas@ and mi@. To be sure, both factions have other members, but nobody conducted a vote -- and we don't even know, what such a vote would mean anyway. Yours, -mi