svn commit: r347539 - in head: biology/genpak biology/rasmol cad/chipmunk databases/typhoon databases/xmbase-grok devel/asl devel/flick devel/happydoc devel/ixlib devel/p5-Penguin-Easy editors/axe ...

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 06:47:02PM +0400, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote:
> Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 02:52:18PM +0100, John Marino wrote:
> > I think it's perfectly legitimate to look at an unmaintained port that
> > needs staging and say, "You know what?  it's not worth it, nobody cares
> > about it, just set it to deprecate and kill it.  Why should *I* care
> > about this port if nobody else in 12 years has cared about it.
> 
> Please, try to look from the user POV: he doesn't care if the port is
> staged, he just needs it.  And it is removed.  And some other random
> OS has 'whack install whazoo' and it works.  Guess, what will happen
> after some such occurrences of removed ports?

Exactly.  I have a bunch of friends who started to use FreeBSD over some
GNU/Linux distro precisely for the fact that we have sooo many software
in our ports.  IMHO we should keep them as long as they build.  Argument
about that vast fraction of them might not be runnable looks reasonable
upfront, but fades away once you realize that overall quality of 3rdparty
stuff is very far from perfect.  At the same time, buildable port is way
more motivating to fix it; lack thereof means non-zero chances of going
away from FreeBSD for something else. :-(

./danfe