From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 7 23:44:57 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A3C9974 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 23:44:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from be-well.ilk.org (be-well.ilk.org [23.30.133.173]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60B891387 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 23:44:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lowell-desk.lan (lowell-desk.lan [172.30.250.41]) by be-well.ilk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C17CB33C22 for ; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 19:44:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by lowell-desk.lan (Postfix, from userid 1147) id 451BA39848; Mon, 7 Apr 2014 19:44:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Lowell Gilbert To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD ports which are currently scheduled for deletion References: <5342E09A.5020908@aldan.algebra.com> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 19:44:43 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5342E09A.5020908@aldan.algebra.com> (Mikhail T.'s message of "Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:30:02 -0400") Message-ID: <44mwfwu2l0.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 23:44:57 -0000 "Mikhail T." writes: > Once again I am seeing this dreadful list and once again I am wondering... Why > are we removing ports simply for being "unmaintained"? > > Those with build-errors -- Ok, I understand, bit-rot happens. Those with (much) > newer versions available -- sure. > > But simply "unmaintained" -- that does not seem right... > > graphics/qvplay is just an example -- linimon's list contains many more ports, > whose only "fault" is not having an active maintainer... In this case, it's a port of software that hasn't been updated in well over a decade, specific to hardware that has been out of production for a long time as well. Objectively, it seems unlikely that anyone is actually using this port, and that it would be unlikely to work if somebody actually tried it. If people are using a port, then I would agree it should be kept regardless of maintainer status. But that doesn't mean keeping everything forever as long as it compiles. It's certainly possible that antoine@ has been a little overzealous in deprecating ports, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to have some evidence that any particular port has actually *worked* in the last ten or fifteen years.