From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 11 12:49:50 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 5A5DD106566B for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:49:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from byshenknet@byshenk.net) Received: from portland.byshenk.net (portland.byshenk.net [69.168.53.243]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 372958FC1C for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:49:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from portland.byshenk.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by portland.byshenk.net (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id p8BCnAYJ036064 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 05:49:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from byshenknet@portland.byshenk.net) Received: (from byshenknet@localhost) by portland.byshenk.net (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id p8BCnARW036063 for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Sun, 11 Sep 2011 05:49:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from byshenknet) Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 05:49:10 -0700 From: Greg Byshenk To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20110911124910.GK13219@portland.byshenk.net> References: <4E6B1AF5.7090900@tomse.dk> <4E6B227B.5050708@FreeBSD.org> <4E6B77EE.6030509@gmx.de> <20110910171530.GC23457@guilt.hydra> <20110910190549.GA23971@guilt.hydra> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110910190549.GA23971@guilt.hydra> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on portland.byshenk.net Subject: Re: Removed ports - looking from the bench 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: Sun, 11 Sep 2011 12:49:50 -0000 On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 01:05:49PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 06:48:30PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: > > On 10 September 2011 18:15, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 04:45:02PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > > >> > > >> I want to make installing dead ports harder for users. > > > > > > Why? > > > > Someone who wants to install a port that has been deprecated and > > removed should really have enough skills to check a port out of the > > Attic at least-- it's one command line. I don't see how much simpler > > it could get: > > This does not answer my question. I find the very concept of wanting to > make it harder for a user to install software bizarre. I could > understand wanting to achieve some other goal, and suffering the > unfortunate case of making it harder to install something, but I do not > understand the simple fact of wanting to make life harder for others, > unless it is a matter of pure spite. Thus my question: > > Why? Because, in the cases here under discussion, there is somethin "wrong" (for some value of 'wrong') with the software in question. I can't speak for Matthias or Chris, but I think the point here is that (at least some) people don't want to make foot-shooting easier. Someone who can't figure out how to install some software if it takes more than 'portinstall ' almost certainly isn't knowledgeable enough to evaluate the risks of installing buggy, exploitable, or unmaintained software. -- greg byshenk - gbyshenk@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL