Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2024 20:53:58 +0100 From: Daniel Engberg <daniel.engberg.lists@pyret.net> To: Fernando =?utf-8?Q?Apestegu=C3=ADa?= <fernando.apesteguia@gmail.com> Cc: Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org>, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, "ports-committers@FreeBSD.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org>, dev-commits-ports-all@freebsd.org, dev-commits-ports-main@freebsd.org Subject: Re: git: 020281bef16d - main - archivers/fastjar: remove undue deprecation of maintained port Message-ID: <f8e2702977c9bd96701f3ac0e8073b50@mail.infomaniak.com> In-Reply-To: <CAGwOe2azznY5jtMdL4uuupMi3SgCd5Pj7O7wWT7qtcV_zDNUNA@mail.gmail.com> References: <202403300538.42U5c9Fc039162@gitrepo.freebsd.org> <CALH631ns%2Bwp5gmR8c0mahc5JOVDJ2KRPgqmkbxbwhbjNKR5LYQ@mail.gmail.com> <03cc3443b1bbb8ec3ff881e73483b2cb@mail.infomaniak.com> <CAGwOe2azznY5jtMdL4uuupMi3SgCd5Pj7O7wWT7qtcV_zDNUNA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2024-03-30T17:00:08.000+01:00, Fernando Apestegu=C3=ADa <fernando.apeste= guia@gmail.com> wrote: > El s=C3=A1b, 30 mar 2024, 14:21, Daniel Engberg <daniel.engberg.lists@py= ret.net> > escribi=C3=B3: >=20 >=20 > > On 2024-03-30T09:06:51.000+01:00, Gleb Popov <arrowd@freebsd.org> wr= ote: > >=20 > > > On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 8:38 AM Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.= org> > > wrote: > >=20 > > > =20 > > >=20 > > > > =20 > > > > The branch main has been updated by danfe: > > > > =20 > > > > URL: > > > https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/ports/commit/?id=3D020281bef16d866a64bac35= 850f21ae27f956b5c > > >=20 > > > > =20 > > > > > =20 > > > > > commit 020281bef16d866a64bac35850f21ae27f956b5c > > > > > Author: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> > > > > > AuthorDate: 2024-03-30 05:36:18 +0000 > > > > > Commit: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> > > > > > CommitDate: 2024-03-30 05:36:18 +0000 > > > > > =20 > > > > > archivers/fastjar: remove undue deprecation of maintained= port > > > > =20 > > > > It is my personal opinion, but I think that one should assume > > > > maintainership when undeprecating a port (especially maintained b= y a > > > group) > > >=20 > > > I also found an old CVE which I don't know if it's fixed or not. > > > https://www.opencve.io/cve/CVE-2006-3619 > > =20 > >=20 > > If you don't know, then it is not an argument to keep the port deprecat= ed. > > If you are, then it might be. Even in that case, as per the handbook, p= orts > > with security issues are marked as FORBIDDEN, not DEPRECATED: Did I state anywhere that as a reason for deprecation? > >=20 > > https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/book/#security-fix > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > > =20 > > > There's also a fork here from what I can tell: > > > http://download.savannah.nongnu.org/releases/fastjar/ > > >=20 > > > I don't know if it's worth keeping for less than a sec of processing= and > > > newer version of openjdk might have improved performance too (openjd= k8 is > > > pretty old). > > >=20 > > =20 > > *might*? I think arguments for or against deprecating should not be gue= sses. Please clarify your reference > >=20 > > Don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping the ports tree clean, but these= "a > > posteriori" (non) arguments sound a bit weak :-) I have no idea what you read. > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > > Best regards, > > > Daniel > >=20 Best regards, Daniel
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f8e2702977c9bd96701f3ac0e8073b50>