FreeBSD ports which are currently scheduled for deletion

[Chris Rees]

On 04/08/14 18:12, Mikhail T. wrote:
> 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.
>
>

Hi Mikhail,

I think the term "self-inflicted" is a little strong... we can't really 
expect the tree to stand still.  I would expect people to loudly 
complain if their favourite port were dropped-- it's really not much 
effort to bring back, and some do come back.

If I have 1000 ports to fix, and decide to drop 50 of them because 
they're ancient and probably unused, it's no effort to restore and fix 
three if someone yells, and I've saved the effort of fixing 47 unused ports.

Chris

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.