From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 8 05:37:28 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64909282 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 05:37:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kob6558@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ee0-f43.google.com (mail-ee0-f43.google.com [74.125.83.43]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03067B61 for ; Tue, 8 Jan 2013 05:37:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ee0-f43.google.com with SMTP id e49so9359eek.16 for ; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:37:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=p16p4zh+cRLAf6tLiAipunIcFMcJQMSMGiOKHtF3zHE=; b=SNbfMtv5HhWwCtZ7OkhIpvADxVzy/XgwWliI9b67y2GnQMqwWttaKlrNjkwQR/FNyf XVdDTkHog+0yMXgIq/juEIPIURlwhyS1s2l5J31kIv2uh/V762gijaI4wc2Pe1OPU8dz 88BSIrw70vAkoNb3CKJrRLQdwFN+ko/+t28sbId6WdjjKj0vu/5cjXaog9H2eQdfRNyz VQICcxW93I5JcEHCzHVDCxm8jspPfKpRJfq8zg/PL9sF/vZ1DBkoeX91QDBDhef/ROuK 9uToELr2zRpTRGFkQ9/KHGauWiRm1QtozjTISEpUXO/skQ/YajvPP8wdlpPC1mkEayKR 9cyw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.14.209.193 with SMTP id s41mr171843249eeo.9.1357623441129; Mon, 07 Jan 2013 21:37:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.170.193 with HTTP; Mon, 7 Jan 2013 21:37:20 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <50EADA33.9010308@aldan.algebra.com> <50EB16B2.4070502@FreeBSD.org> <50EB1991.8010400@marino.st> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2013 21:37:20 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Why delete KDE3 ports? From: Kevin Oberman To: Adam Vande More Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: John Marino , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 05:37:28 -0000 On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Adam Vande More wrote: > On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:53 PM, John Marino wrote: > >> >> Here's the issue I think some folks have: >> >> "Outdated": debatable. If outdated means a newer release is available, >> then yes. If "outdated" means it outlived its usefulness, I'd say no. This >> term seems subjectively used here. >> >> "prone to break": Perhaps, but it's not broken now. >> >> "possibly insecure": I think this needs to be "known insecure" rather >> than holding it's last release date against it. > > > http://www.kde.org/info/security/advisory-20100413-1.txt > > Probably other security issues as well. I didn't have to look very long. > In a codebase as large as KDE's, it seems a very slim chance indeed years > could go by without maintenance and still maintain security. I have a friend still happily using fvwm (not fvwm2). It is really, really old, but it still works. It is not subject to deletion because it still has a maintainer. Being a maintainer of a port that is not in active development is really not hard if you use it and can test it. I don't use KDE3, but someone who does can certainly become maintainer and it won't go away. If no one cares enough about keeping the port to take over maintainership, "Say la vee". (For the record, the last real change to fvwm was almost 4 years ago.) -- R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer E-mail: kob6558@gmail.com