Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:31:14 +0100 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: "freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why do we not mark vulnerable ports DEPRECATED? Message-ID: <CADLo839HoP4BuhaAgg9yZLzpfJU_t%2BmR2SDzEwAhN%2B-CxCNYOg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110830205419.GA70668@guilt.hydra> References: <4E5C79AF.6000408@FreeBSD.org> <20110830152920.GB69850@guilt.hydra> <4E5D321D.9020209@FreeBSD.org> <20110830205419.GA70668@guilt.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 30 Aug 2011 22:13, "Chad Perrin" <code@apotheon.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:55:25AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > > On 08/30/2011 08:29, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > > > > Might that not interfere with the process of getting a new maintainer for > > > a popular port when its previous maintainer has been lax (or hit by a > > > bus)? > > > > Sorry if I'm being dense, but I'm not seeing the connection. Can you > > elaborate? > > I'll put it another way: > > Wouldn't it be easier for a new maintainer to pick up maintenance of a > port if (s)he doesn't have to start over from scratch? > That's what the cvs Attic is for. Stuff doesn't disappear! Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo839HoP4BuhaAgg9yZLzpfJU_t%2BmR2SDzEwAhN%2B-CxCNYOg>