cvs commit: ports/audio/musicbox Makefile ports/misc/peq Makefile ports/games/pp Makefile ports/x11-toolkits/qt145 Makefile

Alexey Dokuchaev danfe at
Tue Sep 27 14:45:12 PDT 2005

On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:14:20PM +0200, Tilman Linneweh wrote:
> * Alexey Dokuchaev [Tuesday, 27. September 2005 17:44 ]:
> > >   Mark qt1 (QT4 is already released) and all ports depending on it as
> >
> > But is there anything wrong with these ports?  I see no reason to
> > abandon things just because they use some old, but stable toolkit with
> > no security issues (presumably).
> Did you verify that there are no security issues?
> There have been security advisories for QT
> (a quick google search turns up CAN-2004-0691 - CAN-2004-0693).
> What else justifies starting the Expiration period: 
> * qt2 hit the ports tree in 1999 (more than 6 years ago), qt1 is not old, it 
> is stoneold. If somebody cared about the remaining apps, he would have 
> started porting them to qt3 in the last 6 years.
> * qt1 does not compile with gcc3.x
> ( We are just entering the age of gcc4.x). Today nobody wants to develop C++ 
> applications with gcc 2.x. If someone was interested in this port he would 
> have merged the patches to make qt1 compile with gcc3 from pkgsrc or OpenBSD.
> * qt4 will soon hit the ports tree. Having and "old, but stable" qt3 and a new 
> shiny version of qt is enough IMHO
> The EXPIRATION_DATE feature was specially introduced to find out if someone is 
> still interested in these ports. So if you still think we need to keep this 
> ports, feel to grab maintainership and remove the EXPIRATION_DATE.

I buy your reasoning.  Sound fair enough.



More information about the cvs-ports mailing list