Removed ports - looking from the bench
wblock at wonkity.com
Sun Sep 11 14:35:34 UTC 2011
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Greg Byshenk wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 01:05:49PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> 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.
Slippery slope: consider PHP, or Apache, or any MTA. Or newfs.
> 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.
The ports system and FreeBSD in general are not capable of accurately
assessing a user's abilities or situation.
Informing the user of problems with a port is certainly within the scope
of the ports system, or a hypothetical "bring back a removed port" tool.
But the responsibility for the installation and use of any software is
all on the informed user. The difficulty or ease of bringing back a
removed port does not change that.
More information about the freebsd-ports