From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 31 07:38:00 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 EDB32106564A for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:38:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Received: from eastrmfepo202.cox.net (eastrmfepo202.cox.net [68.230.241.217]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C4308FC0C for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:38:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmfepo202.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.04.00 201-2260-137-20101110) with ESMTP id <20110831073754.EEHB32466.eastrmfepo202.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:37:54 -0400 Received: from serene.no-ip.org ([98.164.83.25]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id Svdu1h0060YnB6A02vduP2; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 03:37:54 -0400 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020204.4E5DE4D2.00B8,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=5AHg1zS6fKBk64vkGL/stHpTKznySuNzRq0QOAs0BF0= c=1 sm=1 a=ELdGOjK-_lUA:10 a=G8Uczd0VNMoA:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=2vO5UZG1h46htWAnE/rx2g==:17 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=kviXuzpPAAAA:8 a=p0VQEO97_es8_aGrhwMA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=SV7veod9ZcQA:10 a=4vB-4DCPJfMA:10 a=2vO5UZG1h46htWAnE/rx2g==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none Received: from cox.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by serene.no-ip.org (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p7V7bsAI047174 for ; Wed, 31 Aug 2011 02:37:54 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from conrads@cox.net) Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 02:37:48 -0500 From: "Conrad J. Sabatier" To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20110831023748.704a9edb@cox.net> In-Reply-To: <4E5D0856.8080505@FreeBSD.org> References: <201108300823.p7U8NIfD038098@repoman.freebsd.org> <4E5CC44C.3070604@FreeBSD.org> <20110830111152.GF28186@home.opsec.eu> <4E5CD28A.1080809@FreeBSD.org> <20110830122726.GG28186@home.opsec.eu> <4E5D0856.8080505@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.10 (GTK+ 2.24.5; amd64-portbld-freebsd9.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/procmail Makefile 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: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 07:38:01 -0000 On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:57:10 +0200 Matthias Andree wrote: > > I understand that keeping unchanging software can sometimes be > necessary, if you're working around its quirks. > > At the same time I'd like to discourage new installations of dead > software so that it disappears over time, rather than haunt fresh > systems. That makes perfect sense, yes. > How about if we added a new tag "OBSOLESCENT" or so that permits > building the software only if it's already installed but refuses new > installations? Of course there could be a switch to override that, > like TRYBROKEN that can override BROKEN= tags. You had me on the edge of my seat for a while there, talking about removing my beloved procmail. Now this suggestion I could easily live with. :-) > I'm not sure if it's feasible for packages (but OBSOLESCENT could > imply "do not package") but for ports it would be possible. I like it. :-) -- Conrad J. Sabatier conrads@cox.net