Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 08:48:33 -0800 From: Beech Rintoul <beech@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: "Conrad J. Sabatier" <conrads@cox.net>, Matthias Andree <mandree@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/procmail Makefile Message-ID: <201108310848.33692.beech@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20110831023748.704a9edb@cox.net> References: <201108300823.p7U8NIfD038098@repoman.freebsd.org> <4E5D0856.8080505@FreeBSD.org> <20110831023748.704a9edb@cox.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart1914077.21XkLfqOP4 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tuesday 30 August 2011 23:37:48 Conrad J. Sabatier wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 17:57:10 +0200 >=20 > Matthias Andree <mandree@freebsd.org> wrote: > > I understand that keeping unchanging software can sometimes be > > necessary, if you're working around its quirks. > >=20 > > 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. This passive idea will do nothing but generate a lot of confusion. If a por= t=20 is actually broken then it should be either fixed or deprecated with the=20 proper advance notice. The idea of a port that disappears over time will ca= tch=20 a lot of users unprepared. This whole issue has been addressed by portmgr o= n=20 several occasions that I can remember and the consensus was to leave alone= =20 mature working ports. As for procmail, has anyone bothered to talk to the=20 maintainer? >=20 > That makes perfect sense, yes. >=20 > > 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=3D tags. We don't need another tag even if it can be overridden. We already have a=20 method of dealing with "dead" ports. >=20 > 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. :-) >=20 > > I'm not sure if it's feasible for packages (but OBSOLESCENT could > > imply "do not package") but for ports it would be possible. >=20 > I like it. :-) I don't! Beech =2D-=20 =2D------------------------------------------------------------------------= =2D------------- Beech Rintoul - FreeBSD Developer - beech@FreeBSD.org /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | FreeBSD Since 4.x \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail | http://people.freebsd.org/~beech X - NO Word docs in e-mail | Skype: akbeech / \ - http://www.FreeBSD.org/releases/8.2R/announce.html =2D------------------------------------------------------------------------= =2D------------- --nextPart1914077.21XkLfqOP4 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAk5eZeEACgkQFrTqt+y/3EQwYQCfSgGE/2TasTG1wwSGdP0f8OWI r9YAn0Ken97L949ScqksryP0CTBoC3iQ =UKO3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1914077.21XkLfqOP4--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201108310848.33692.beech>