[Bug 199333] graphics/pdf2svg UNBREAK - add MASTER_SITES
bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org
bugzilla-noreply at freebsd.org
Sat Apr 11 19:09:03 UTC 2015
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199333
--- Comment #12 from Chris Hutchinson <portmaster at bsdforge.com> ---
(In reply to John Marino from comment #11)
> (In reply to Chris Hutchinson from comment #10)
> > Should I find my list growing beyond my ability to give them the
> > attention they deserve/require, I can/will give them back to ports@ :)
>
> Unfortunately, this is the exact scenario that I fear. People want port X
> to die because they are sick of it. Then if you claim it, we pretty much
> have to assign it to you, but if then release it later on, it's going to
> hang around until it's finally deprecated again.
Speaking for *this* port. I had looked for *quite* some time for a port
that did *exactly* what this port did. I don't know if that constitutes/
defines "obscure". But I can't tell you how happy I was to have discovered
this port.
If you really want a port to die. IMHO it might be more effective to
issue an EOL/DEPRECIATION warning:
Heads up, this port is slated for removal on XXXX-XX-XX because it
doesn't appear to be of any significant value to anyone.
You could then easily determine it's *actual* value based on the
response to the message.
> In this scenario, people
> would rather it just die instead of coming back in unmaintained. I know you
> are coming from it with the Point of View that you are doing everyone a
> favor, but hopefully now you can see it's not always viewed as a positive
> thing. This is why I have been recommending that you limit this to ports
> you actually use.
See just above.
>
>
> > In going through the list, I found ports that while *seemingly*
> > somewhat obscure, appeared to have value. To *me* anyway.
>
>
> I interpret the above as a confirmation that I was right -- that you don't
> actually use the port, but somehow it appears valuable and worth saving
> anyway. This is the situation I was warning against. We have all the ports
> in version control, so any can be revived if somebody actually wants it.
>
> > I have no desire to take a port from anyone that is a Maintainer. But
> > after a bit of investigation, those that I substituted myself for,
> > appeared to have been using distcache for some time -- often for more than
> > a year.
>
>
> Well, please that the file wasn't just moved on the same server (as in this
> case) or if the exact same file is readily available somewhere else. The
> length it was pulling from distcache really doesn't indicate anything --
> only that nobody noticed.
I didn't see that in this case. I *did* attempt to find the file
on the web site, but w/o success. Glad you (two) were able to discover
otherwise. Especially in the case of the GitHub version.
Thanks John, for your thoughtful reply.
I don't know how you effectively determine that a port must die, nor
how you have determined (exactly) how many ports I am capable of
(effectively) maintaining. But I can assure you, I give reasonable
consideration to those ports I *choose* to maintain.
I have also been unable to find the list of ports that everyone wants
to die. ;)
Thanks, again.
--Chris
>
> Thanks
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
More information about the freebsd-ports-bugs
mailing list