From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Feb 8 00:47:25 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2FFEA9F705 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 00:47:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "wonkity.com", Issuer "wonkity.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DFF2D2F for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2016 00:47:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id u180lOuH092433 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Sun, 7 Feb 2016 17:47:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id u180lOqr092430; Sun, 7 Feb 2016 17:47:24 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2016 17:47:24 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block To: John Marino cc: FreeBSD Mailing List Subject: Re: Removing documentation In-Reply-To: <56B752FD.6000906@marino.st> Message-ID: References: <56B752FD.6000906@marino.st> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (BSF 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=US-ASCII X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Sun, 07 Feb 2016 17:47:24 -0700 (MST) X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 00:47:25 -0000 On Sun, 7 Feb 2016, John Marino wrote: >>> 1. Remove all mention of portmaster. That's what this PR recommends. >>> 2. Do nothing. >>> 3. Update the documentation to indicate the current status, >>> recommending alternatives if possible. >> >> Number 4 is missing: find a maintainer for it. >> >> I would volunteer for this. But before a real commitment i need a closer >> look at it, which i will do next week. So please standby. > > This is not just any port. > Anybody proposing to be maintainer, in my opinion, should first be > required to take over every open PR in bugzilla, then fix all the known > issues there (and elsewhere) and only then be assigned maintainership > because at that point they've proven they can do the job. > > What I do not what to see is somebody putting their name in the > MAINTAINER field just to keep it from being deprecated, etc, when that > someone is either unqualified or has no intention of fixing the issues > or both. It is a little early to assign ulterior motives to a non-existent maintainer for something that has not actually happened. > I think the maintainer must have an expert level knowledge of the ports > true and there are probably not that many people that can actually > maintain this script. That would explain the lack of maintainers. Well, that, and it's written in sh, the Not-A-Programming-Language That Time Forgot(TM). Have similar requirements been set for maintainers of any other port? In the past, calls for maintainers have gone out when important ports needed them. I don't recall that happening for portmaster, at least not up to now.