2nd deprecation campaign
freealson at gmail.com
Fri Jun 17 06:11:43 UTC 2011
On Jun 17, 2011, at 2:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>> The depreciation is only for those ports that don't have public available distfiles right? So that I agree that broken ports should be excluded from this depreciation.
> That is the way it is done, anyway there still could be some false
> positive having people to doulble check is always good :)
Agreed, but I just feel like these ports should not be in the depreciation list at the first place. That's my point my I could be wrong.
>> So yes, always give people chance to fix ports, not remove them from the tree.
>> And, do we have a list of all maintainer-wanted ports, because that would be great if we have.
> Here you are :)
What if we just put all un-maintained ports in this list instead of in the depreciation list?
>> Hai Lang
More information about the freebsd-ports