Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 07:33:33 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 206922] Handbook: Chapter 4.5+ changes Message-ID: <bug-206922-9-Ju4fwjjpwL@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-206922-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-206922-9@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D206922 --- Comment #2 from John Marino <marino@FreeBSD.org> --- I have a much strict view of the world. You have a tool presented as "official" that hasn't had it's original maintainer in 4 years and was only kept on life support up until 9 months a= go. In my world, this is a *COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE* situation. What other s/w is documented yet unmaintained in FreeBSD?=20=20 There seems to be a feeling that having portmaster unmaintained is ok, and = that portmaster has no bugs. I think neither is the case. In my world, there are two options: 1) officially support portmaster 2) remove it from documentation This suggestion, "let's just add a footnote that it's not maintained" is not good one, nor it is a professional one. Where is the motivation to save this particular piece of software coming fr= om?=20 And why the pro-portmaster people not maintaining it (assuming they have the ability?) finally, if getting it out the documentation initiates it removal out the p= orts collection, I could go for that. Howver, right now, it doesn't *deserve* t= o be in the documentation because it as fallen below acceptable maintenance level and I hope everyone realizes that. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-206922-9-Ju4fwjjpwL>