cvs commit: ports MOVED ports/sysutils Makefile ports/sysutils/portindex Makefile distinfo pkg-descr patch-varju

[Garance A Drosihn]

At 4:04 PM -0500 9/13/04, Mark Linimon wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>
>>  |   Remove port on maintainer/upstream's request
>>  |  
>>  |   PR:             ports/71534
>>  |   Submitted by:   maintainer
>>  |   Approved by:    portmgr (linimon)
>>
>  > was this a good idea, as it's what a lot of people are using
>  > because of the portsdb/bdb bug ?
>
>Well, my view is that if we are asked to remove a port, and the
>license is not crystal-clear (which, from reading the source, it
>was not), then we are obligated to do so.
>
>Note: I'm not really happy with this development -- perhaps someone
>else can arrange to take it over -- but from my reading of the email
>response from the author, this was our only course of action.

I suspect it is the correct course of action.  Unfortunately.

When I see this, all I can think of is that this event (sadly) just
proves that the people who suggested other alternatives to the
portsdb problem were right for suggesting a "minimal fix" instead
of telling people to completely switch over to some new port.

A pity, because the port sounded interesting even though I did not
have the time to investigate it when the portsdb problem came up.

-- 
Garance Alistair Drosehn            =   gad at gilead.netel.rpi.edu
Senior Systems Programmer           or  gad at freebsd.org
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute    or  drosih at rpi.edu