From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 27 21:37:57 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 CA35F106566B for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:37:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from corky1951@comcast.net) Received: from qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.16]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F40F8FC1A for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:37:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.88]) by qmta01.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id cldx1g0071uE5Es51ldx8G; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:37:57 +0000 Received: from comcast.net ([98.203.142.76]) by omta16.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id cldq1g00l1f6R9u3clduJG; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:37:57 +0000 Received: by comcast.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:37:48 -0700 Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:37:48 -0700 From: Charlie Kester To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20110427213748.GK38579@comcast.net> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <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> <20110427204723.GA74591@atarininja.org> <4DB882C8.8090604@aldan.algebra.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Mailer: Mutt 1.4.2.3i X-Composer: Vim 7.3 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 21:37:57 -0000 On Wed 27 Apr 2011 at 14:05:57 PDT Eitan Adler wrote: >>> apache13 is EOL upstream. We should not have ports for EOL software. >> >> Why not, exactly?.. > >What happens if a security hole or a bug is found? Are we the ones to >fix it? No. The rule of caveat emptor should apply. We don't warranty anything else in the portstree, why would you think that there's an implied warranty in this scenario? >If yes are we to host the patches? The question is moot, given a negative answer to the preceding one. >Where should the bug reports go to - our bug tracker? If they do get submitted there, they should be immediately closed as "Won't Fix". >What if our implementation ceases to match established documentation? >Should we host the docs too? Same answers as above. > >The ports collection is one of *third party* software (with a couple >of small exceptions). If the third party says "this program is done, >has bugs which won't be fixed, etc" we should no longer support it. Keeping it in the tree != obligation to provide support, i.e., bugfixes for anything except the port Makefile and other port-related files. As long as there's a maintainer willing to do the work to keep it running (warts and all) on the currently-supported FreeBSD releases, I don't see any reason why it can't be kept in the tree. >>> >>> If upstream says it's dead, who are we to keep it alive? >> >> We are a major Operating System project, which maintains ports of >> third-party applications for the convenience of our users. An >> EOL-declaration by the authors does not mean, the users must stop using it >> immediately -- it simply says, the authors will not be releasing >> updates/bug-fixes. > >Correct. However (a) if the third party gave an upgrade path we should >encourage our users to use it and (b) if there *are* known bugs and >especially security holes we should cease to make it available through >our tree. Agree with (a) but maybe not (b). That's a decision that should be left to the users. > > If a user says "I found an issue with X and it is EOL upstream" the >correct response is to "upgrade to a supported version". See above. >However this discussion is different to the one that we started with >(namely that of deprecated ports) so lets try and get back on track :-) Actually, it's a closely related question.