From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Apr  8 16:55:48 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A5D28201
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Tue,  8 Apr 2014 16:55:48 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mailrelay002.isp.belgacom.be (mailrelay002.isp.belgacom.be
 [195.238.6.175]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 429E117AE
 for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Tue,  8 Apr 2014 16:55:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Belgacom-Dynamic: yes
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlcGAMMoRFNbsJU2/2dsb2JhbABZgwbFPIEgF3SCJQEBAQQ6HCMQCxgJJQ8qHgYTiAAByhsXjghkB4Q4AQOYXJJBgzI7gSw
Received: from 54.149-176-91.adsl-dyn.isp.belgacom.be (HELO
 kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org) ([91.176.149.54])
 by relay.skynet.be with ESMTP; 08 Apr 2014 18:55:39 +0200
Received: from kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org (kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org
 [127.0.0.1])
 by kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id s38Gtb59022762;
 Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:55:38 +0200 (CEST)
 (envelope-from tijl@coosemans.org)
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:55:37 +0200
From: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@coosemans.org>
To: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com>
Subject: Re: FreeBSD ports which are currently scheduled for deletion
Message-ID: <20140408185537.69d5cd6e@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org>
In-Reply-To: <5344005C.4030503@aldan.algebra.com>
References: <mailman.0.1396958400.6606.freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
 <5344005C.4030503@aldan.algebra.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/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, 08 Apr 2014 16:55:48 -0000

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:57:48 -0400 Mikhail T. wrote:
> On 08.04.2014 08:00, freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org wrote:
>> 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.
> Why not? Why not "keep everything forever as long as it compiles"? Where
> is this idea coming from, that stuff must be continuously updated to be
> considered usable?

It doesn't have to be updated continuously, but it has to be used.
Keeping a port requires effort.  It needs to be kept up to date with
infrastructural changes (like staging) and if nobody is using the port
that's just a waste of effort.