From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 9 05:33:28 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 1B2EDA05 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 05:33:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pd0-x22b.google.com (mail-pd0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E084F1A68 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2014 05:33:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pd0-f171.google.com with SMTP id r10so1984985pdi.16 for ; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 22:33:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=fZhl6PnvSUBLp2Hr3iTQfyP4cWdZkXuBbUrDDnDQolY=; b=ZTpaJ72/CiovRq2GwwlBRztuu5oLvo6UWT4Y3poiNPL9cSPuBcPvisV750AWZYFKoa 6a2ejUIHDooXg44Jq6VYhh9W/FzSABqrWRuiNB32sTHlZw8uq+dbo4degyaYNKEmRfRr v5HP20nb49gaSVS3rEEymJvE3Y1EPnOApYqjykzqbuENO/KEVUdOY+0ARX9lyLfMxum9 aBabu16pgMoo+nSPErp+Kw5tPW0cokcOFi2xCqbsqY34TnUXl2fQZVoOMQsZm5rRgMRJ uif5Eq+Z0qyCdtza48LYBJJzdBzgMbAr627G2poioaN61YawmpeksIImFLudiFhAo5pC ootA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.68.233.200 with SMTP id ty8mr9359723pbc.1.1397021607557; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 22:33:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: kob6558@gmail.com Received: by 10.66.73.34 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 22:33:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140409002033.5a2d9850@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> References: <5344005C.4030503@aldan.algebra.com> <20140408185537.69d5cd6e@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <53442E10.6060907@aldan.algebra.com> <20140409002033.5a2d9850@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 22:33:27 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: lzbGRy5hcmgYbRhhkKbxv9-PtKQ Message-ID: Subject: Re: FreeBSD ports which are currently scheduled for deletion From: Kevin Oberman To: Tijl Coosemans Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 Cc: "Mikhail T." , FreeBSD Ports ML X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 05:33:28 -0000 On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 13:12:48 -0400 Mikhail T. wrote: > > On 08.04.2014 12:55, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > >> 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. > > Tijl, there is no indication whatsoever, that ports on the chopping > block are > > not used. The argument put forth by the proponents of the removals is > thus: "The > > upstream authors haven't made a new release in a long time, therefor the > > software must be neither any good, nor see much use." > > > > I find this logic flawed -- some of my favorite books are more than 2000 > years > > old, for example... Their authors certainly aren't making new releases, > yet they > > continue to be maintained, built (published), and used by generations. > > > > The closest we've ever come to estimating usage is the following: "If > there is > > any user-base to speak of, then there should be a person among them > willing to > > maintain the port -- or pay someone to maintain it." This, too, is > flawed in my > > opinion -- expecting a graphics-artist, a biologist, or an audiophile to > also be > > a half-decent software engineer is a stretch; expecting them to pay for > > port-maintainership is also not fair, when the entire OS is free, done > for fun, > > rather than profit. > > > > Though I agree, that unmaintained ports should be dropped when they > break due to > > things like security bugs or compiler-upgrades, the self-inflicted > wounds like > > infrastructure changes do not qualify. Volunteers taking it upon > themselves to > > perform such changes, should be prepared to deal with all that's > required for them. > > Volunteer time should not be wasted on ports nobody uses. Removing such > ports is a good thing. > > It's impossible to prove that a port is really unused, but if there are > enough indications that it is potentially unused it becomes reasonable to > assume that it is. Lack of upstream development is one such indicator > and by itself it may not be enough but in the examples you've given it > isn't the only indicator. For qvplay for instance the main argument is > that it is support software for a 250 kilopixel camera from the nineties. > For xmms there's xmms2, audacious and numerous other multimedia players. > Happily, a fix for xmms is in the offing. But you should realize that xmms2 is in no way a replacement for xmms, though the authors seemed to have believed that it was. Instead it is a needlessly complex client/server system for playing audio files. I'm sure that someone found xmms2 useful, but for simply playing music, it is both overkill and complex to use. Besides, DLNA has made it pretty obsolete as a media server. If a port, say xmms, is believed obsolete, deprecation with a revision bump so people who use it see that it was deprecated, I think you would hear if you happened to be wrong about how obsolete it is.. :-) I that how it is being done? If it is marked AND revision bumped, it is much more likely that you will find out that a port is still being used BEFORE it is removed. (I don't know whether or not this is the procedure.) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired E-mail: rkoberman@gmail.com