Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2021 12:44:36 +0300 From: Anatoly <anatoly@kazanfieldhockey.ru> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Python 2.7 removal outline Message-ID: <20210327124436.2fdd99b5@asd2.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <b1677c9444cc54c58dae35d62771eb9b@bsdforge.com> References: <20210324130347.GA29020@freefall.freebsd.org> <ba9b8eb5e0d2c5e0dbdb5a757f594522@bsdforge.com> <YF1wKLQ8ikIVsUUy@home.opsec.eu> <b1677c9444cc54c58dae35d62771eb9b@bsdforge.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 25 Mar 2021 23:06:27 -0700 Chris <portmaster@bsdforge.com> wrote: > On 2021-03-25 22:24, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > > The portmgr@ role is a huge task and all the reasons (limited time, > > dayjobs, etc) ares valid for those folks from portmgr as for > > the rest of the ports maintainers and committers. > Indeed, and don't think that hadn't occurred to me. In fact I > suspected that portmgr@ was feeling a bit overwhelmed, and that > *that* triggered the seemingly overreaching python announcement. > May I humbly request a petition for such large-sweeping changes? IMHO > this will give portmgr@ the opportunity to get caught up, and perhaps > get some assistance -- maybe we all come up with an idea that saves > _everyones_ bacon. :-) I already miss tools depending on gtk1.2, qt3, qt4 in ports. Maybe it makes sense to introduce new "flag" NOAUTOBUILD= <REASON> To mark the ports from which no packages should be build quarterly automatically to reduce portmgr@ load, instead of just dropping those ports out of ports tree? And leave all the care of those ports to their maintainers, requiring them some kind of "pings" to detect if maintainer is "alive" as the only criteria to keep port in the tree?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20210327124436.2fdd99b5>