Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:46:49 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@acm.org> To: martinko <gamato@users.sf.net> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Deprecation campaign Message-ID: <20110426004649.GG10901@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <ip521q$30h$1@dough.gmane.org> References: <AANLkTinxZmVDX8yU7S6bAoBnSzzzobBN%2B64XJBapP=bA@mail.gmail.com> <20110317091244.GA17060@lonesome.com> <ip521q$30h$1@dough.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--AGZzQgpsuUlWC1xT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2011-Apr-26 02:02:02 +0200, martinko <gamato@users.sf.net> wrote: >I understand you want to remove a port if it does not build and there is= =20 >no one (in long time) to fix it. However, deprecating because a dist=20 >file moved, while port may be perfectly functional, seems a bit too=20 >much, imho. For these ports, the port as it stands does not fetch. Someone needs to update the port with the new distfile location - this is the responsibility of the port's maintainer. If a port remains broken for an extended period, it indicates that no-one cares about it any longer and therefore no-one should miss it if it's deleted. > So why would we deny them using the=20 >ports if all it takes is publishing the port files somewhere ? And=20 >since FreeBSD has the infrastructure and resources I see no issue in=20 >providing parking for such distfiles, especially if we believe they are=20 >used by minority of users. Or is there something I miss here ? Who do you see as responsible for doing this? Whilst the FreeBSD Project has resources for storing/distributing distfiles, it takes human effort to verify that the port's license allows the FreeBSD Project to host the distfile and to actually copy the distfile. That person also needs to distinguish between the cases: a) The port is up-to-date and the distfile has moved b) The project (and hence distfile) have been renamed c) The port is so out-of-date that the distfie has been removed by the vendor Whilst the effort required for a single port may not be great, the total effort to work through all the ports in this situation would be substantial. This is not the task of the port committers group. It's up to the port's users to come up with a maintainer - if none of a port's users are willing to put in the effort to ensure that the port remains usable, why should the FreeBSD Project expend scarce resources to offering that port? If there are ports on the deprecated list that you use, maybe it's up to you to step up and maintain them. --=20 Peter Jeremy --AGZzQgpsuUlWC1xT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk22FfkACgkQ/opHv/APuIedQQCcCpwM8DQ8nmTAYy/x+At3wp1j KhMAn2xm+z8o2p+3eEsLBxqWHuVUNG40 =tkAB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --AGZzQgpsuUlWC1xT--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110426004649.GG10901>