Recent ports removal
mandree at FreeBSD.org
Mon Nov 14 19:59:47 UTC 2011
Am 10.11.2011 12:06, schrieb Dmitry Marakasov:
> Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken, it's
> useable, you may not remove it, period.
It appears to me that yours - although shared with mi@ - is a minority
vote, and on top of that, also one with little weight because -- and
this is my personal perception that is likely to differ -- it is from
one of the people who nag about the policy of fact, and rather talk,
than grab a port and fix it so it can stay.
Where "work" in the previous paragraph can be substituted with providing
other resources, like recruiting new volunteers, bribing current
contributors, or thereabout.
Nagging from your seat isn't helpful.
Now, let's get constructive, here are my ideas for the current round of
port removal nagging:
1. I'd like to officially propose to remove the
MAINTAINER=ports at FreeBSD.org tag from unmaintained ports and have the
ports/Mk/bsd.*.mk stuff be explicit about the port being unmaintained,
so as to pull this rug from underneath the naggers so they can no longer
delude anyone to believe a port were "maintained by ports@".
2. We could see to exposing deprecations or somethings more clearly.
portmaster -L is a contributor here, but I think it needs to move closer
to the baseline source. Marking such mars in INDEX (dougb@ mentioned
that) sounds useful to me, if it's viable.
Else we can consider bumping PORTREVISION when marking a port FORBIDDEN
or DEPRECATED so that this change gets exposed.
3. Perhaps we should also consider not to build packages for ports that
have the slightest mar (DEPRECATED, unmaintained, whatever) -- but that
requires more discussion and thought.
You won't leave footprints (read: make any difference to existing
practice) unless and until you walk (read: work).
More information about the freebsd-ports