From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 27 20:55:01 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B2B1065673 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:55:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@eitanadler.com) Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com (mail-vw0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3DB18FC1A for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:55:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vws18 with SMTP id 18so2123146vws.13 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:55:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=eitanadler.com; s=0xdeadbeef; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=yBuoSvmzH7ElcIsBBZ5a27f4jg8T+ELIjoVS/8Ajmtk=; b=hKne5u8ESDhV4PuQ+LINM5QKlqv6Tb5Ad9Ln+heFWdStmEd9bXnjwai/Elg3kUYJk4 4xVvwWG9yZJANYMOiWpAl40Uz43T1GFNctiUBDROEgaNN6BQ/hq5ZJy24iKx5zAspSt7 ywilk6onDIIi3KwYxvXXRpELip2Zhx7H9gq5E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=eitanadler.com; s=0xdeadbeef; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=S/xXYZWxOa6gYwiHLTWdgZXcmSOpMbFd/fd0vyu8VLdqS35c5NSzRaAO4ssNeQXfg9 B4lVFSMVPxfVNcAM/Hc7o3nvwiCJRS0NS589Ht1cFG9/oMBgWyhrlPM680125zWyt7fI EAeJNCI/licCN1Ir3HMy/rFFs9arc6u0RK0Ow= Received: by 10.52.75.165 with SMTP id d5mr1774747vdw.300.1303937700124; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:55:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.181.202 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:54:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DB876AE.9050906@aldan.algebra.com> References: <4DB6165F.1010806@FreeBSD.org> <20110426024122.GA38579@comcast.net> <20110426163424.GB38579@comcast.net> <20110426141209.0d07bccf@seibercom.net> <20110426184315.GA2320@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> <19895.13977.553973.609431@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <4DB83D6E.9000800@aldan.algebra.com> <4DB876AE.9050906@aldan.algebra.com> From: Eitan Adler Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 16:54:30 -0400 Message-ID: To: "Mikhail T." Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Robert Huff , Chip Camden , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: saving a few ports from death 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: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 20:55:01 -0000 >dougb is anxious to delete apache13 as well instead of simply disowning it... The upstream maintainer already called it "end of life". FreeBSD does not and will not ever take over the development of dead upstream ports (and in this case there is a upstream version) >The same entity(ies), that currently busy themselves marking things >"deprecated". The ports marked "broken with no one to fix them" (shortened to 'deprecated') take a significant amount of time and energy to fix. Think of the warning as a "call to fix" for those parts. If you feel > No, not easily. It requires the CVS tree, which is not automatically > installed. /usr/ports/obsoleted, on the other hand, would be rolled out > together with the rest of the ports-tree. And for those who want to use old, and likely broken ports, they can take that effort to install the tree. > And, under my proposal, the > packages for the "obsolete" stuff will continue building. Which is a *major* drain of resources. One of the reasons for ceasing the building of packages for broken/completely obsolete is to avoid draining the computer time building said packages. Take a guess how long it takes to build from start to completion a complete set of packages. I'll bet you get it wrong. Furthermore in order to continue building packages the ports have to *work* which most of them presently do not. What you fail to understand is that we are NOT marking ports as 'obsolete' or 'bad' or 'there exists a better program' but as broken and unmaintained. What we ARE saying is that "this port does not presently work and no one took up the mantle to (a) fix it (b) maintain it (c) continue to the maintain it in the future. There are hundreds if not thousands of obsolete ports in the tree. This is because someone decided to MAINTAIN the ports. We can not support BROKEN ports unless someone does the work. [snip] > Same goes for apache13 -- last change was an upgrade to 1.3.42 (February > 2010) -- it does not seem to require much work. Apache 1.3 is DEAD and been supplanted upstream. If you wish to fork apache 1.3 and make a new project we will GLADY host a port for it (if someone decided to maintain it) I strongly doubt that you have any idea of the amount of work it takes to support 23,000 ports. Furthermore it seems that your proposals fail to consider the amount of infrastructure work that must be delayed or even prevented due to sheer number of broken and unmaintained ports. -- Eitan Adler