Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 02:02:02 +0200 From: martinko <gamato@users.sf.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Deprecation campaign Message-ID: <ip521q$30h$1@dough.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <20110317091244.GA17060@lonesome.com> References: <AANLkTinxZmVDX8yU7S6bAoBnSzzzobBN%2B64XJBapP=bA@mail.gmail.com> <20110317091244.GA17060@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mark Linimon wrote: > For those that want to see the state of all this, you can check out > the following URL: > > http://portsmon.freebsd.org/portsconcordancefordeprecated.py > > In particular, the "interesting" entries for you may be the unmaintained > ports (e.g. maintainer = "ports@FreeBSD.org".) In some of the other > cases, the maintainer had already asked for the port to be deprecated > (e.g. obsolete versions of databases/postgresql, dns/bind, > emulators/linux_base, etc.) > > If you find that any of the ports on this list are ports that you use at > your site, please consider taking them over as maintainer. This would > help FreeBSD out. > > fwiw, an email version of this will go out on the 21st via a cronjob. > > Thanks. > > mcl I understand you want to remove a port if it does not build and there is no one (in long time) to fix it. However, deprecating because a dist file moved, while port may be perfectly functional, seems a bit too much, imho. I've just glanced at the list linked above and I've noticed a few ports I've used in (not that distant) past. So I believe there are still users of them out there. So why would we deny them using the ports if all it takes is publishing the port files somewhere ? And since FreeBSD has the infrastructure and resources I see no issue in providing parking for such distfiles, especially if we believe they are used by minority of users. Or is there something I miss here ? With regards, Martin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ip521q$30h$1>