Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 01:25:24 -0400 From: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> To: perryh@pluto.rain.com Cc: kostikbel@gmail.com, ports@freebsd.org, utisoft@gmail.com, yar.tikhiy@gmail.com Subject: Re: sysutils/cfs Message-ID: <4E670044.10604@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <4e671899.UXfdjkh4zFfW66Bh%perryh@pluto.rain.com> References: <CADLo838g=r3C4pHVteObPYrA6VxB7%2B4banaEXeVrPwGD7MDAtg@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo83_A%2BOh%2Bi4ZFQ=KnZyvBk0h2pf%2BbJnjhYHm=5UyacjE3cA@mail.gmail.com> <4E6503C2.5080002@aldan.algebra.com> <CADLo838bxRPmJS-qzRF9wzGseKr6CoxoXEWb0rmcYDfhK_ZLQg@mail.gmail.com> <20110905180214.GS17489@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <4E65A738.7080903@gmail.com> <4e671899.UXfdjkh4zFfW66Bh%perryh@pluto.rain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 07.09.2011 03:09, perryh@pluto.rain.com wrote:
> So at this point, all that is needed is for someone interested in
> preserving the port -- like maybe you? -- to step up and_do_ that.
The main topic here -- despite the subject line -- is not about the
particular part, but about the conflicting opinions on when to remove
ports from the tree. The fate of sysutils/cfs or any other individual
port is, really, secondary to that discussion...
Yar, myself, as well as other folks, who object to the on-going
deprecations/removals of ports for the slightest of offenses, can fix
/any/ port currently on the death-row, but we can not fix /all/ of them.
Still, we would like them to remain in the tree -- unless they flat-out
do not build.
Yours,
-mi
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E670044.10604>