Dropping maintainership of my ports

Erik Trulsson ertr1013 at student.uu.se
Wed Apr 27 07:50:57 UTC 2011

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 12:15:43AM -0700, Charlie Kester wrote:
> On Tue 26 Apr 2011 at 23:27:40 PDT John Marino wrote:
> >
> >You're just sulking because your idea of identifying popular ports
> >wasn't met with enthusiasm.  
> >
> No, it's more than that.  I got the distinct impression that many of the
> committers would be unhappy if I took maintainership of some of the
> ports I might identify as "popular", because it would interfere with
> their plans to trim the portstree.

Then you have misunderstood things.  I don't think anybody would be
unhappy if you (or anybody else) took maintainership of one or more of
the currently unmaintained ports.
What plans there are, are not so much about trimming the portstree in
general but trimming the number of unmaintained ports.

What is met with uninterest is your plans to identify "popular" ports.

> Re-read the thread.  At every point I'm talking about looking for ports
> I (and others) might want to maintain, as a service to their users.  Now
> ask yourself why I've been getting so much resistance to that, when we
> keep hearing how deprecated ports can be easily resurrected if someone
> steps up to maintain them?  

Actually you spend much time speaking about/looking for "popular" ports
and that is what is met with uninterest.
If you want to take maintainership of a port because you personally use
that port and want to have it working, that is great.
If you want to take maintainership of a port because you believe that
it is a "popular" port, then go ahead, just don't expect much help with
identifying such ports.

> Every response from the committers ignored what I said I was trying to
> do, and instead repeated the same old arguments about stale,
> unfetchable, broken or superceded ports.  That "talking points" response
> tells me that they didn't want me doing what I was doing to buck an
> already-established policy of letting unmaintained ports die unless and
> until someone complains.

(Actually the policy is that unmaintained and non-working ports should
be let to die, unless somebody steps up to fix the port and take

Nobody is stopping you from assuming maintainership of one or more of
those unmaintained ports, and thus preventing them from being removed.

<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
ertr1013 at student.uu.se

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list