From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 25 08:42:17 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 64F7ABD9; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:42:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3925612DF; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:42:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.31.9.204] (unknown [213.225.137.129]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8590A435C7; Fri, 25 Apr 2014 03:42:04 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <535A1FD1.4050000@marino.st> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 10:41:53 +0200 From: John Marino User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Dokuchaev , marino@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r352089 - head/print/detex References: <201404250715.s3P7FSaK088998@svn.freebsd.org> <535A17DB.3070300@marino.st> <20140425083031.GA95184@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20140425083031.GA95184@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Rusmir Dusko , svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 08:42:17 -0000 On 4/25/2014 10:30, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:07:55AM +0200, John Marino wrote: >> By the way, you didn't address the stated reason it was deprecated: It >> has no maintainer and hasn't had one in 12 years. (still true) > > Which is rather bogus (at very least, arguable) reason to deprecate a port > in the first place (provided that it is otherwise fine and non-broken). Yes, I know you do and that at least a few others share that opinion. Part of the fallacy of "why delete a working port" is ignoring the fact the port is only working because others have been maintaining the port for years (more than a decade). This is easily verified by looking at freshports and seeing numerous commits well after the port maintainer threw it back on the heap. So to imply that it's no effort to it (look, it builds!) ignores all the collective effort that's already been spent on it. And frankly nobody can claim that it's been maintained and works correctly and has no vulnerabilities / all options make sense / etc -- only that it builds. Hell, who knows if the port even has any users anymore? nobody is looking at these aspects. So I am on the other side. It's fine to have collective maintenance for a reasonable amount of time until the port can be adopted again. For me, that reasonable time does not extend more than a decade. John