Why do we not mark vulnerable ports DEPRECATED?

[Chad Perrin]

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 11:55:25AM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 08/30/2011 08:29, Chad Perrin wrote:
> > 
> > Might that not interfere with the process of getting a new maintainer for
> > a popular port when its previous maintainer has been lax (or hit by a
> > bus)?
> 
> Sorry if I'm being dense, but I'm not seeing the connection. Can you
> elaborate?

I'll put it another way:

Wouldn't it be easier for a new maintainer to pick up maintenance of a
port if (s)he doesn't have to start over from scratch?

-- 
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20110830/5514cb49/attachment.pgp