Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:11:33 +0800 From: Lang Hai <freealson@gmail.com> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2nd deprecation campaign Message-ID: <5983C77D-13B7-4855-BDB0-A00E8D2BF2DE@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimZodEVONJP6tsDtBgSOpyXj_ov=Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <BANLkTimHB8USHJLG8Jtb4Nwu7O7O3q4u%2BA@mail.gmail.com> <BANLkTi=Jh-P9jBxbkmSnjB1PX_nWE27Upw@mail.gmail.com> <6F24ECDD-78FB-473D-A249-B76A3615D0AF@gmail.com> <BANLkTimZodEVONJP6tsDtBgSOpyXj_ov=Q@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> The depreciation is only for those ports that don't have public = available distfiles right? So that I agree that broken ports should be = excluded from this depreciation. >=20 > That is the way it is done, anyway there still could be some false > positive having people to doulble check is always good :) Agreed, but I just feel like these ports should not be in the = depreciation list at the first place. That's my point my I could be = wrong. >=20 >>>=20 >> So yes, always give people chance to fix ports, not remove them from = the tree. >>=20 >> And, do we have a list of all maintainer-wanted ports, because that = would be great if we have. > Here you are :) > = http://www.freshports.org/search.php?stype=3Dmaintainer&method=3Dexact&que= ry=3Dports@FreeBSD.org >=20 What if we just put all un-maintained ports in this list instead of in = the depreciation list? >=20 >> Regards, >> Hai Lang >=20 > regards, > Bapt Regards, Hai Lang=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5983C77D-13B7-4855-BDB0-A00E8D2BF2DE>