Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 09:13:31 +0100 From: Tony Mc <afmcc@btinternet.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysutils/cfs Message-ID: <20110906091331.024c0eec@elena> In-Reply-To: <20110905180214.GS17489@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> References: <CADLo838g=r3C4pHVteObPYrA6VxB7%2B4banaEXeVrPwGD7MDAtg@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo83_A%2BOh%2Bi4ZFQ=KnZyvBk0h2pf%2BbJnjhYHm=5UyacjE3cA@mail.gmail.com> <4E6503C2.5080002@aldan.algebra.com> <CADLo838bxRPmJS-qzRF9wzGseKr6CoxoXEWb0rmcYDfhK_ZLQg@mail.gmail.com> <20110905180214.GS17489@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 21:02:14 +0300 Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > Second, I personally consider the crusade to remove old but compiling > and working (*) ports as a damage both to the project functionality > and to the project reputation. I find this whole "discussion" rather strange. You use the highly loaded term "crusade" and someone else refers to "drive by ports shootings" and yet you claim it is the FreeBSD ports developers who are being immature and unprofessional. I am a happy user of FreeBSD and have been for years. I currently have 1341 ports installed. From time to time that brings difficulties, but I know from experience that they will be resolved pretty quickly. I follow the ports mailing list and read /usr/ports/UPDATING. If I am using a port that is no longer being maintained and is known to have vulnerabilities or potentially data-destroying bugs, I would much prefer to know about that and, if necessary, move to another port that provides equivalent functionality, even if that means I have to learn another set of options, configurations etc. I do not want abandoned and broken software on my computer so having them removed from ports (or put into the attic) seems to me exactly right - it pushes me to learn some other program that will do the same thing more securely or more correctly. How can that be a bad thing? The irresponsible thing surely would be to leave everything in ports and wonder why FreeBSD got a reputation for "supporting" broken or vulnerable software. I use FreeBSD because it is so stable and does what I need it to do. Paradoxically, that stability requires constant change. Of course I understand the concern about release users who might be faced with a surprise when they upgrade. But for such users I guess upgrading is a big deal anyway and they would presumably research the impact of the move before jumping to a newer version. I suppose, for what it's worth, I just wanted to offer a different point of view from the rather negative posts I've read recently. I see the work being done to clean up the ports tree as necessary in the short term and very beneficial in the longer term. Best, Tony
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110906091331.024c0eec>