saving a few ports from death

Mikhail T. mi+thun at
Wed Apr 27 21:10:04 UTC 2011

Eitan, you are entitled to your opinions, but not to your own facts. My factual 
corrections are inline below. Arguing about opinions and policy is useless until 
the facts are accepted as such by all participants:

On 27.04.2011 16:54, Eitan Adler wrote:
> The upstream maintainer already called it "end of life". FreeBSD does
> not and will not ever take over the development of dead upstream ports
> (and in this case there is a upstream version)
I never suggested, we undertake /development/ of upstream software -- EOLed or 
not. Fact 1.
>> The same entity(ies), that currently busy themselves marking things>"deprecated".
> The ports marked "broken with no one to fix them" (shortened to
> 'deprecated') take a significant amount of time and energy to fix.
db2 was not broken. Neither is apache13... Fact 2.
> Which is a *major* drain of resources.
"Major"? Didn't you say earlier, that the most recent sweep -- only deleted 
about 3% of the ports? I'd say, this is Fact 3, but, maybe, even 3% qualifies as 
"major" in your view... And was not this sweep the largest in our history?
> What you fail to understand is that we are NOT marking ports as
> 'obsolete' or 'bad' or 'there exists a better program' but as broken
> and unmaintained.
I can only repeat the example of db2. It was never broken, but deleted 
nonetheless... The same is about to happen to apache13...


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list