Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 17:04:13 +0100 From: Chris Rees <crees@freebsd.org> To: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: sysutils/cfs Message-ID: <CADLo838QkAjq2jPXy_c5MTYW09tZJMvWTNndo3Pnfa3=1c-5Og@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E67935C.6080702@aldan.algebra.com> References: <4E651DCF.30605@FreeBSD.org> <201109052146.p85Lkous037023@fire.js.berklix.net> <CADLo838dMd5=TjRF5ffiaPH7o0%2BpeWgaqbQqEfDb3EP-n4ec8A@mail.gmail.com> <4E67935C.6080702@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7 Sep 2011 16:53, "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> wrote: > > On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Chris Rees wrote: >> >> I don't actually think they've been divisive -- it's been policy for years. > > > The policy -- up until fairly recently -- was to remove ports, that *fail to build* for a while. This made sense -- if the port remains unbuildable long enough, then, certainly, it is no longer in use. > > The /new/ policy of removing ports for much lighter offenses, such as having vulnerabilities, has already caused so many objections, that it is time to abolish it. > I consider the argument here dead; portmgr is reviewing the policy as Erwin has said. However... I find it deeply troubling that you consider buildability more important than security fixes. Are you actually serious? Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo838QkAjq2jPXy_c5MTYW09tZJMvWTNndo3Pnfa3=1c-5Og>