From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 4 20:08:51 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 278701065670 for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 20:08:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com) Received: from smtp03.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp03.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.157.103]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1FE88FC12 for ; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 20:08:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mr16.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.36]) by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2011 15:39:59 -0400 Received: from smtp04.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp04.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.157.104]) by mr16.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 4.2.3-GA) with ESMTP id BCU29511; Sat, 4 Jun 2011 15:39:58 -0400 Received: from 209-6-61-133.c3-0.sbo-ubr1.sbo.ma.cable.rcn.com (HELO [192.168.1.8]) ([209.6.61.133]) by smtp04.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 04 Jun 2011 15:39:58 -0400 Message-ID: <4DEA8A0E.5070108@aldan.algebra.com> Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 15:39:58 -0400 From: "Mikhail T." User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; uk-UA; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110525 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthias Andree References: <20110603001251.GA66356@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <20110603065653.GB65291@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> <4DE8D764.20607@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <4DE8D764.20607@gmx.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Re: GPC 2006 (Pascal) -- deprecated or "expired"?? 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: Sat, 04 Jun 2011 20:08:51 -0000 On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Matthias Andree wrote: > Call it dying or undead then. That's usually not reason enough for > someone who does not _need_ the port (for something other than to put it > on display, that is) to invest time. If it is not dead, it should not have been removed... (Temporary) absence of maintainer is not a good reason for removal. Sadly, this appears to be yet another manifestation of the bright new idea, that the comfort of port-managers is more important than the availability of software. Least somebody else claims again, that there is "consensus" on the issue of removing ports, let me state my dissenting opinion once again: the only good reason (other than licensing/legal) to remove a port is when it remains broken -- due to changes in the base OS -- for "too long". Changes to ports infrastructure or in other ports, that break a particular port, do not count -- if any such changes break a port, then the changes ought to be backed-out immediately. Not even the maintainer can "kill" a port -- they can only disown it. By all appearances, lang/gpc is just another victim of the new policy, where ports are removed on the personal decisions of people with enough free time to make them. Such approach is prone to mistakes and subtle favoritism -- for there are no reliable statistics on which ports are in use, nor how vitally important a particular one is to its user-base (however small). Traffic on ports@ is not indicator of the users' preferences whatsoever. Although most open-source applications out there offer pre-compiled Linux binaries, FreeBSD's ports offered a compelling alternative by providing the same applications carefully integrated with the best Unix in the world. If we continue to capriciously drop ports for no other reason than that a group of 10-15 (if that many!) considers it "obsolete" or "dying", we will be losing that competitive advantage. Yours, -mi