deprecated ports

[Paul Schmehl]

--On March 16, 2011 6:15:11 AM +0000 "b. f." <bf1783 at googlemail.com> wrote:

>> That said, I think that un-deprecating these ports just because someone
>> can find a distfile somewhere is the wrong approach. bapt has been very
>> careful to only deprecate ports that are on the absolute bottom of the
>> pile. They are unmaintained, and unfetchable.
>
> That's not completely accurate.  Some ports were deprecated because
> their distfiles had been moved, sometimes to another directory on the
> same server, but this went unnoticed because the distfiles were
> mirrored locally.

I think the point is that if the ports were maintained properly, those 
changes would not go unnoticed.  For example, I maintain a port named 
security/chaosreader.  Recently it failed to build, after which I promptly 
got an email notification.  I quickly figured out that one of the files 
that needs to be downloaded had been moved to a different uri on 
sourceforge, updated the port and submitted a PR.

That's how it's *supposed* to work.  When a port become unmaintained, that 
doesn't happen.  While it's true that some "good" ports might get caught in 
the sweep, the reality is that if someone was maintaining them they 
wouldn't get deprecated.

The ports system depends on active maintainers and breaks down when 
maintainers are inactive.

-- 
Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions
are my own and not those of my employer.
*******************************************
"It is as useless to argue with those who have
renounced the use of reason as to administer
medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson
"There are some ideas so wrong that only a very
intelligent person could believe in them." George Orwell