Dropping maintainership of my ports

[Jerry]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 09:49:58 +0200
Erik Trulsson <ertr1013 at student.uu.se> articulated:

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 unfetchable, broken or superceded ports.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

I concur with Erik. I think you are totally missing the point of the
original post. The desired wish was to remove dead ports that could not
be fetched, or would not build. Possibly, even superseded ports;
although that was not specifically mentioned I don't believe. In to
many of those cases those ports have no formal maintainer.
Unfortunately, some do. In any case, it was proposed that those said
ports be removed. Ports that are current would not be affected. As you
stated, your ports are current and in working order. This proposal
would therefore not effect you unless I am also misreading the intent
of the proposal.

-- 
Jerry ✌
jerry+ports at seibercom.net

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________
The more we disagree, the more chance
there is that at least one of us is right.