Google Code as an upstream is gone

[Torsten Zuehlsdorff]

On 29.09.2016 21:10, Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Christian Weisgerber wrote on 09/29/2016 18:57:
>>> Mathieu Arnold:
>>>
>>>> If the software has not been moved to some other place, (it takes about
>>>> 30 seconds to click the automatic migration to github thing, and it is
>>>> usually done within the hour,) since march 2015, it is most likely
>>>> abandoned and should not be kept in the ports tree.
>>>
>>> That's a bold new policy.
>>>
>>> In the past, if the upstream was gone and the maintainer judged the
>>> software still useful (at their discretion, not based on a cut-off
>>> date), they would even fall back to providing the distfile at
>>> people.freebsd.org.
>>
>> I don't think it is good to remove ports just because source was not
>> updated for some time. There are ports useful even 10 years after last
>> update. Namely pnm2ppa is really old piece of code. It was removed from
>> ports tree because there was not maintainer. So I must become a
>> maintainer and now the port is alive again.
>> I think there should not be policy to remove ports if they have
>> maintainer or some user using them if only thing which should be done is
>> to change SRC url.
>
> I agree, old code does not mean it's useless code.

Yes. Like i already said: there is a great bunch of software were the 
developer is even dead and the software is still useful. The software is 
feature complete and just runs.

> We probably need a way to find out how often a pkg is downloaded
> from a repo to understand which ports/pkg are really used in our
> user base. This helps to decide if a port is really no longer in use.

That would be very misleading. Some people always compile (like myself 
for example). And if the software is old it is very likely that you 
install them ones. And another time when you need a new server because 
your hardware died.

Greetings,
Torsten