deprecated because: Development has ceased??? Maybe development is *complete*

Matthias Andree matthias.andree at gmx.de
Fri Sep 9 17:29:18 UTC 2011


Am 09.09.2011 13:15, schrieb Conrad J. Sabatier:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011 08:33:08 +0200 (CEST)
> linimon at freebsd.org wrote:
> 
>> portname:           german/ksteak
>> description:        KDE frontend for steak, an english - german dictionary
>> maintainer:         ports at FreeBSD.org
>> deprecated because: Development has ceased.
>> expiration date:    2011-09-01
>> build errors:       none.
>> overview:
>> http://portsmon.FreeBSD.org/portoverview.py?category=german&portname=ksteak
>>
>>
>> portname:           german/steak
>> description:        An english <-> german dictionary under the GPL
>> maintainer:         ports at FreeBSD.org
>> deprecated because: Development has ceased.
>> expiration date:    2011-09-01
>> build errors:       none.
>> overview:
>> http://portsmon.FreeBSD.org/portoverview.py?category=german&portname=steak
> 
> Pardon my objection (I know you guys are getting slammed with a lot of
> complaints lately), but...
> 
> "Development has ceased": Is that really the only reason for removing
> these two ports?  There's really nothing wrong with either of them, to
> the best of my knowledge, and both are very useful to me in my
> correspondence with native German speakers.

Are you willing to fill in as a spare for the original author if users
have problem with the port or with the software?

Are you willing to keep the software going as the FreeBSD environment,
ports libraries, and everything changes?

If so, welcome Conrad Sabatier the new maintainer for steak and ksteak.

If you're not willing or uncapable of doing that work, then you can
complain all you want but won't be heard.

> "Development has ceased" just seems to be insufficient as an *automatic*
> cause (excuse?) for removing a port, IMHO.  Are we saying that once a
> program has reached a finished, final, stable working state, the
> developer(s) should be required to continue coming up with ways of
> modifying it for no good reason other than to avoid being dropped from
> our ports collection?  Viewed from this perspective, doesn't that seem
> just a tad unreasonable?

Software maintenance doesn't mean that the software has to change if
there's nothing that needs to change.

Leafnode-1 (news/leafnode) barely changes at all these last years, just
an occasional fix.  However, it's still maintained and if you report a
serious bug I - as the upstream author - will fix it.

If the author of another package stated that maintenance ceased, that is
no longer the case.  Any why let port users fall into this pit?  They
are still able to install from source, but we're no longer offering
assistance.

> This really does lead one to wonder just what exactly is motivating the
> individuals leading the charge in this latest rash of ports removals.  I

"no capacity to support", as was restated more than once.

> If having a maintainer for these two ports might spare them from the
> executioner's ax, I'll be happy to add them to my existing list of
> responsibilities.

I take it that sooner or later it will be unworkable. steak is no longer
available, and ksteak hasn't been ported to KDE4/Qt4.  I suppose that
Qt3's days are counted, and once that's removed, so will ksteak be even
if you can find and hosting the steak sources and possibly fix bugs.

It might prolong the port's life a bit, but I think the overall prospect
for this port is bleak unless someone assumes the upstream maintainer job.

I think the time would be better spent on finding and/or recommending a
replacement for KDE 4 so that we can point users in the right direction
when they look for a translator.  I would not believe that there's no
alternative, but I'm not about to research that.


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list