svn commit: r383472 - head/audio/muse

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 09:27:54AM +0200, John Marino wrote:
> [...]
> You've already gotten feedback from 3 people that they prefer the new
> version, so that's hardly gratuitous.

Well, Don had really said that he is "not particularly fond of either the
original or the update", but let's stop it here; arguing about this whole
thing further is getting ridiculous.  Getting back on a larger, general
scale:

> There's only 3 cases:
> 1) the maintainer is doing it himself (not your business)

I beg to disagree.  Being a maintainer does not mean one can do anything
about the port; there are certain rules, bylaws, and guidelines on how to
maintain a port properly and not make work of others harder.  Also, mind
the fact that maintainers (in a long run) come and go, so it might not be
mine (or yours) today, but not necessarily tomorrow.

> ports at FreeBSD.org ports are one step above deprecation.  Just let
> drive-by fixers do their job on unwanted ports without giving them too
> much grief.  That's my opinion.

I generally disagree with this concept of unmaintained => one step above
deprecation and unwanted.  I've given away quite a bunch of my ports,
which are certainly not unwanted and are up-to-date and in good working
condition, just because I do not want to pose a hard lock on them, and
they are hard to mess up with.  That said, what's wrong with having them
"maintained by the community" (by ports@)?  I like this reading of what
does "maintained by ports@" really mean better. :-)

MAINTAINER=ports@ should not be a scarlet letter.

./danfe