From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 30 21:31:15 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27A0F106564A for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:31:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from utisoft@gmail.com) Received: from mail-iy0-f182.google.com (mail-iy0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E74C08FC0A for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:31:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iadx2 with SMTP id x2so56772iad.13 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:31:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=4XrlMdDvl1CAqJ982AYvATliEtgaWp3B5K2oNfXEHQc=; b=tTC0IPCi2BCV2UdP3Zk8nq5+j1u3xXl4qDUbkS9BOqBc81FgVCMirKgsB7+BpXzFAx koMi0RjrCvevo/xbg88pNahH8ymO3xwT2/6PZ1zyCeRbNiorUx2aYRBIITRs5TJ2onpw J7JxHXHLzBZVSAzkdKhnsXMZFduqjetMWa0cs= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.66.85 with SMTP id m21mr14052278ibi.53.1314739874557; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.61.148 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.61.148 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:31:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110830205419.GA70668@guilt.hydra> References: <4E5C79AF.6000408@FreeBSD.org> <20110830152920.GB69850@guilt.hydra> <4E5D321D.9020209@FreeBSD.org> <20110830205419.GA70668@guilt.hydra> Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 22:31:14 +0100 Message-ID: From: Chris Rees To: "freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: Why do we not mark vulnerable ports DEPRECATED? X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:31:15 -0000 On 30 Aug 2011 22:13, "Chad Perrin" 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