www/chromium MAINTAINER, was Re: chromium producing constant hdd access

[René Ladan]

2011/1/18 Julian H. Stacey <jhs at berklix.com>:
> Hi,
> Reference:
>> From:         Mark Linimon <linimon at lonesome.com>
>> Date:         Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:48:50 +0000
>> Message-id:   <20110118004850.GB17292 at lonesome.com>
>
> Mark Linimon wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 08:12:40PM +0100, Julian H. Stacey wrote:
>> > rene@ has ignored request to roll back.  If rene@ resigns,
>> > MAINTAINER would revert to ports at freebsd.org so others could fix
>> > FreeBSD's current ports/www/chromium
>>
>> Because of the legal questions surrounding chromium,
>
> I know nothing of that. Just that a month ago it compiled, now it won't.
>
>> portmgr will ensure
>> that it does not revert to ports@ :-)
>> mcl
>
> So how about:
>        Revert to something that will compile, with no MAINTAINER.
>        Or delete port ?
>                A port that
>                        - wont build,
FORBIDDEN is there for a reason [*]
>                        - the maintainer won't fix,
makes no sense, versions before 8 are unsupported upstream,
>                        - has security issues,
not my fault ...
>                        - is legaly problematic
there are proper methods to handle this, the issue is mostly upstream,
>                        - ports@ is scared of inheriting
ports@ is an indication that the port is unmaintained, except for a few
well-known exceptions (misc/compat??)
>                        - that we can't fix by adding a _DEPENDS etc
makes no sense, see above

[*] maybe all currently vulnerable ports should be marked FORBIDDEN, and yes,
this includes a dependency for linux-flash-plugin

Regards,
Rene