From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 18 15:33:09 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00A216A4D3; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:33:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD84443D1D; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 15:33:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 4A92714715; Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:33:09 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:33:09 -0600 (CST) From: Mark Linimon X-X-Sender: linimon@pancho To: Norikatsu Shigemura In-Reply-To: <200402181358.i1IDw5Xh050695@sakura.ninth-nine.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: ports@FreeBSD.org cc: Adam Weinberger Subject: Re: www/flashpluginwrapper X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 23:33:10 -0000 > Is this OK? I was following your lead, so anything that's decided is fine with me. Perhaps some of these deprecated messages should be generalized to say "not recommended for new installations: use XYZ instead." My idea for instituting the deprecations is not to remove any existing functionality. My idea is to try to "take out the garbage" in the ports collection -- I think we would all agree that there is some -- it's just a question of what constitues "garbage". I'm really more interested in things that, e.g., stand no chance of ever working on 5.3, or haven't fetched in 3 years, or are otherwise abandonware. mcl