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

[Julian H. Stacey]

Hi Rene, 
Your mailer is emitting many \xa0 


=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ren=E9_Ladan?= wrote:
> 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 [*]

I don't query FORBIDDEN being set.
It's up to individual builder/user to choose to over ride that or not.

But port was not broken a month ago & Is now broken so should be fixed
or marked BROKEN.

ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk:
# FORBIDDEN             - Package build should not be attempted because of
#                                 security vulnerabilities.
# BROKEN                - Port is believed to be broken.  Package builds will
#                                 still be attempted on the pointyhat package cl
uster to
#                                 test this assumption.


> >                        - the maintainer won't fix,
> makes no sense, versions before 8 are unsupported upstream,

Not relevant. FreeBSD ports do not Need to be supported up stream to run
& work, eg multimedia/acidrip has not been supported by author for years.
It still compiles & runs. If we marked as RESTRICTED, then broke the Makefile
of any port that merely was no longer supported upstream, then FreeBSD
ports/ would become a graveyard.

Chromium still compiled a month ago till someone broke it.


> >                        - has security issues,
> not my fault ...

I don't query that.


> >                        - 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

It compiled it a month ago.  It runs here.  A friend garyj saw it,
said it wouldn't compile for him, I tried to make again on same
release for a package, & found someone had broken it.


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

	Aside: I don't run flash.  I also did a search a while back
	to try to find all ports that installed binaries Not from
	fetched sources (a difficult job, I didnt complete it, &
	not many people were interested in the security aspect of 
	running non localy compiled binaries, unfortunately.)

FORBIDDEN for all ports with vulnerabilities would rule out more than 
many would want, I guess.  But some ports could benefit from eg:

Mk/bsd.port.mk:
# DEPRECATED    - Port is deprecated to install. Advisory only.
 ( see also # DISABLE_VULNERABILITIES )

Cheers,
Julian
-- 
Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com
	Mail plain text;  Not quoted-printable, or HTML or base 64.
	Avoid top posting, it cripples itemised cumulative responses.