Deprecation campaign

Peter Jeremy peterjeremy at
Tue Apr 26 00:46:58 UTC 2011

On 2011-Apr-26 02:02:02 +0200, martinko <gamato at> wrote:
>I understand you want to remove a port if it does not build and there is 
>no one (in long time) to fix it.  However, deprecating because a dist 
>file moved, while port may be perfectly functional, seems a bit too 
>much, imho.

For these ports, the port as it stands does not fetch.  Someone needs
to update the port with the new distfile location - this is the
responsibility of the port's maintainer.  If a port remains broken for
an extended period, it indicates that no-one cares about it any longer
and therefore no-one should miss it if it's deleted.

>  So why would we deny them using the 
>ports if all it takes is publishing the port files somewhere ?  And 
>since FreeBSD has the infrastructure and resources I see no issue in 
>providing parking for such distfiles, especially if we believe they are 
>used by minority of users.  Or is there something I miss here ?

Who do you see as responsible for doing this?  Whilst the FreeBSD
Project has resources for storing/distributing distfiles, it takes
human effort to verify that the port's license allows the FreeBSD
Project to host the distfile and to actually copy the distfile.  That
person also needs to distinguish between the cases:
a) The port is up-to-date and the distfile has moved
b) The project (and hence distfile) have been renamed
c) The port is so out-of-date that the distfie has been removed
   by the vendor

Whilst the effort required for a single port may not be great, the
total effort to work through all the ports in this situation would be
substantial.  This is not the task of the port committers group.

It's up to the port's users to come up with a maintainer - if none of
a port's users are willing to put in the effort to ensure that the
port remains usable, why should the FreeBSD Project expend scarce
resources to offering that port?

If there are ports on the deprecated list that you use, maybe it's
up to you to step up and maintain them.

Peter Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list