sysutils/cfs

[Chris Rees]

On 7 Sep 2011 16:53, "Mikhail T." <mi+thun at aldan.algebra.com> wrote:
>
> On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Chris Rees wrote:
>>
>> I don't actually think they've been divisive -- it's been policy for
years.
>
>
> The policy -- up until fairly recently -- was to remove ports, that *fail
to build* for a while. This made sense -- if the port remains unbuildable
long enough, then, certainly, it is no longer in use.
>
> The /new/ policy of removing ports for much lighter offenses, such as
having vulnerabilities, has already caused so many objections, that it is
time to abolish it.
>

I consider the argument here dead; portmgr is reviewing the policy as Erwin
has said.

However... I find it deeply troubling that you consider buildability more
important than security fixes. Are you actually serious?

Chris