cvs commit: ports/cad/admesh Makefile

Dmitry Marakasov amdmi3 at
Sat Aug 13 13:37:21 UTC 2011

* Doug Barton (dougb at wrote:

> We've had this discussion about 6 times now.

Maybe we should stop doing things that raise such discussions then?

> The community consensus is that we need to cull dead ports from
> the tree in order to reduce the maintenance burden and allow for
> more flexibility.

"Dead" means it doesn't build or doesn't work. Which exactly of
these "unfetchable" ports doesn't build or doesn't work?

> Two really good indicators that the port is dead is that the
> upstream work has stopped for a long time, and that the distfiles
> are not fetchable except from our mirrors (which are not intended
> to be the primary distribution mechanism).

That is strange definition of "dead". Does it stop being dead if I
mirror distfiles? Have all dependent ports (on graphics/lib3ds,
lang/expect, for example) suddenly became dead too?

> What has happened throughout this process is that people have come
> forward to maintain ports that they care about, which has included
> providing locations to host the distfiles. That is what happened
> in this case.

What has happened is users being unable to build perfectly working
ports because of unneeded BROKEN's. FreeBSD ports are criticized for
frequent build problems, there are talks about stable port branch
for user to experience less frustration with ports tree, yet such
plain sabotage is happening.

Dmitry Marakasov   .   55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56  9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D
amdmi3 at  ..:  jabber: amdmi3 at

More information about the cvs-ports mailing list