Removed ports - looking from the bench

[Chad Perrin]

On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 06:48:30PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 10 September 2011 18:15, Chad Perrin <code at apotheon.net> wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 04:45:02PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> >>
> >> I want to make installing dead ports harder for users.
> >
> > Why?
> 
> Someone who wants to install a port that has been deprecated and
> removed should really have enough skills to check a port out of the
> Attic at least-- it's one command line. I don't see how much simpler
> it could get:

This does not answer my question.  I find the very concept of wanting to
make it harder for a user to install software bizarre.  I could
understand wanting to achieve some other goal, and suffering the
unfortunate case of making it harder to install something, but I do not
understand the simple fact of wanting to make life harder for others,
unless it is a matter of pure spite.  Thus my question:

Why?

-- 
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/20110910/0fae97a3/attachment.pgp