From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 28 22:19:39 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE96B1065670 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:19:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx21.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.4]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 676DE8FC24 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:19:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 4797 invoked by uid 399); 28 Sep 2010 22:19:24 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.0.142?) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 28 Sep 2010 22:19:24 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4CA269E6.4030005@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 15:19:18 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.9) Gecko/20100915 Thunderbird/3.1.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexey Dokuchaev References: <201009272151.o8RLpA8I002279@repoman.freebsd.org> <20100928024255.GA61304@FreeBSD.org> <20100928075649.c3bcb0a9.ehaupt@FreeBSD.org> <20100928122336.GB32589@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20100928122336.GB32589@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2a1pre OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Emanuel Haupt , ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/sysutils/screenie Makefile pkg-descr X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 22:19:39 -0000 On 9/28/2010 5:23 AM, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > I am thinking that there might be users who do not really want to > become maintainer of otherwise perfectly working port (for them). That concern is understandable, but the problems come in down the road when something in the infrastructure changes, and there is no one to update the stale port. Not culling stale stuff is also how you get into situations like I cleaned up recently where you have ports that haven't even been fetchable for years still sitting around because no one pays attention to them. > Hence my point of that we should probably deprecate ports that have > some run-time/build problems, not just mere lack of development. The model of "get rid of it unless someone is willing to maintain it" has worked well for the 15 years I've been involved with FreeBSD. It's also the best chance we have of perhaps inciting interest in someone who would otherwise never consider becoming a port maintainer. At over 22,000 ports we have to seriously start looking at things in terms of "reasons to delete stale stuff" instead of "reasons to keep things around at all costs." The current system isn't even manageable, it's only going to get worse if we don't remove things when it's perfectly reasonable to do so. Doug -- ... and that's just a little bit of history repeating. -- Propellerheads Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/