Removed ports - looking from the bench
Greg Byshenk
freebsd at byshenk.net
Sun Sep 11 12:49:50 UTC 2011
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 01:05:49PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> 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?
Because, in the cases here under discussion, there is somethin "wrong"
(for some value of 'wrong') with the software in question. I can't
speak for Matthias or Chris, but I think the point here is that (at
least some) people don't want to make foot-shooting easier.
Someone who can't figure out how to install some software if it takes
more than 'portinstall <software>' almost certainly isn't knowledgeable
enough to evaluate the risks of installing buggy, exploitable, or
unmaintained software.
--
greg byshenk - gbyshenk at byshenk.net - Leiden, NL
More information about the freebsd-ports
mailing list