Dropping maintainership of my ports

[Diane Bruce]

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 07:35:58AM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> 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:
> > > >
...
> > > 
> > > 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 unfetchable, broken or superceded ports.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"

No, no and no. If you have a copy of the upstream package the port was
based upon and it is open source, you can 'fork' it. Create a project
on sourceforge, or Berlioz, or somewhere, put the package there, announce it
get some people together to maintain it. That has the advantage of having
FreeBSD minded people maintaing it upstream. That's all. Easy Peasy.
That's for unfetchable ports or even superceded ports. If you prefer
an older program than a supposed newer suggested replacement, you can
fork the older program. That's how it works.

> > (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.)

Exactly. 

> > 
> > 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 Possibly, even superseded ports;

Right.

- Diane
-- 
- db at FreeBSD.org db at db.net http://www.db.net/~db
  Why leave money to our children if we don't leave them the Earth?