saving a few ports from death

Doug Barton dougb at
Tue Apr 26 23:28:11 UTC 2011

On 04/26/2011 15:09, Charlie Kester wrote:
> Now that I have my code proved out, I'm going to expand it to look at
> all unmaintained ports regardless of category.   Any suggestions for
> where I should post the results?  (That is, unless you think the
> bitbucket is the only suitable place for it.)

As a matter of curiosity, sure, put it on a web site somewhere, no worries.

Meanwhile, I think you might be missing the point. :)  We should not be 
looking for reasons to save unmaintained ports. We should be providing 
resources for those that would like to adopt them, pointing users to 
suitable alternatives, marking them deprecated so as to encourage 
maintainers to come forward, etc. In other words, exactly what we have 
been doing.

Yes, there will likely be a period after the ports actually disappear 
where some of them will need to be resurrected because someone will 
finally be motivated to step forward. But that's easily done. Meanwhile, 
let's nuke as much as we can, as fast as we can. We're rapidly closing 
in on 23,000 ports, which is already an unmanageable mess. We need to be 
able to delete the cruft if we have any hope of keeping the ship afloat.



	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list