FreeBSD ports which are currently scheduled for deletion

[Mikhail T.]

On 08.04.2014 12:55, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:57:48 -0400 Mikhail T. wrote:
>> > On 08.04.2014 08:00, freebsd-ports-request at freebsd.org wrote:
>>> >> If people are using a port, then I would agree it should be kept
>>> >> regardless of maintainer status. But that doesn't mean keeping
>>> >> everything forever as long as it compiles.
>> > Why not? Why not "keep everything forever as long as it compiles"? Where
>> > is this idea coming from, that stuff must be continuously updated to be
>> > considered usable?
> It doesn't have to be updated continuously, but it has to be used.
> Keeping a port requires effort.  It needs to be kept up to date with
> infrastructural changes (like staging) and if nobody is using the port
> that's just a waste of effort.
Tijl, there is no indication whatsoever, that ports on the chopping block are
not used. The argument put forth by the proponents of the removals is thus: "The
upstream authors haven't made a new release in a long time, therefor the
software must be neither any good, nor see much use."

I find this logic flawed -- some of my favorite books are more than 2000 years
old, for example... Their authors certainly aren't making new releases, yet they
continue to be maintained, built (published), and used by generations.

The closest we've ever come to estimating usage is the following: "If there is
any user-base to speak of, then there should be a person among them willing to
maintain the port -- or pay someone to maintain it." This, too, is flawed in my
opinion -- expecting a graphics-artist, a biologist, or an audiophile to also be
a half-decent software engineer is a stretch; expecting them to pay for
port-maintainership is also not fair, when the entire OS is free, done for fun,
rather than profit.

Though I agree, that unmaintained ports should be dropped when they break due to
things like security bugs or compiler-upgrades, the self-inflicted wounds like
infrastructure changes do not qualify. Volunteers taking it upon themselves to
perform such changes, should be prepared to deal with all that's required for them.

Yours,

    -mi