From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Aug 30 16:39:34 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
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 378171065670;
	Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:39:34 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com)
Received: from mail.soaustin.net (pancho.soaustin.net [76.74.250.40])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18A1B8FC14;
	Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:39:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502)
	id 988325615B; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:39:33 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:39:33 -0500
From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>
To: Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20110830163933.GC17573@lonesome.com>
References: <201108300823.p7U8NIfD038098@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<4E5CC44C.3070604@FreeBSD.org>
	<20110830111152.GF28186@home.opsec.eu>
	<4E5CD28A.1080809@FreeBSD.org>
	<20110830122726.GG28186@home.opsec.eu>
	<4E5D0856.8080505@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4E5D0856.8080505@FreeBSD.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/procmail Makefile
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 16:39:34 -0000

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 05:57:10PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> How about if we added a new tag "OBSOLESCENT" or so that permits
> building the software only if it's already installed but refuses new
> installations?

Right now if you set DEPRECATED you'll get a warning.  Shouldn't
that be sufficient without introducing a new mechanism that enforces
a policy?

mcl