GPC 2006 (Pascal) -- deprecated or "expired"??
mi+thun at aldan.algebra.com
Sat Jun 4 20:08:51 UTC 2011
On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Matthias Andree wrote:
> Call it dying or undead then. That's usually not reason enough for
> someone who does not _need_ the port (for something other than to put it
> on display, that is) to invest time.
If it is not dead, it should not have been removed... (Temporary)
absence of maintainer is not a good reason for removal.
Sadly, this appears to be yet another manifestation of the bright new
idea, that the comfort of port-managers is more important than the
availability of software.
Least somebody else claims again, that there is "consensus" on the issue
of removing ports, let me state my dissenting opinion once again: the
only good reason (other than licensing/legal) to remove a port is when
it remains broken -- due to changes in the base OS -- for "too long".
Changes to ports infrastructure or in other ports, that break a
particular port, do not count -- if any such changes break a port, then
the changes ought to be backed-out immediately. Not even the maintainer
can "kill" a port -- they can only disown it.
By all appearances, lang/gpc is just another victim of the new policy,
where ports are removed on the personal decisions of people with enough
free time to make them. Such approach is prone to mistakes and subtle
favoritism -- for there are no reliable statistics on which ports are in
use, nor how vitally important a particular one is to its user-base
Traffic on ports@ is not indicator of the users' preferences whatsoever.
Although most open-source applications out there offer pre-compiled
Linux binaries, FreeBSD's ports offered a compelling alternative by
providing the same applications carefully integrated with the best Unix
in the world. If we continue to capriciously drop ports for no other
reason than that a group of 10-15 (if that many!) considers it
"obsolete" or "dying", we will be losing that competitive advantage.
More information about the freebsd-ports