ports/155759 - bad reasons for ports removal -- again

Mikhail T. mi+thun at aldan.algebra.com
Mon May 23 14:42:29 UTC 2011

On 23.05.2011 06:42, Matthias Andree wrote:
> In your particular case, you as the maintainer remained silent on the
> relevant PR although Erwin and I have pointed you to it on March 21st
This is true -- I was silent on the PR. My earlier objection was to my alleged 
"silence" on ports@
> and your ports were broken since the db2 removal in April.
Yes, they were. The person(s) behind that gratuitous removal is/are responsible 
for the breakage of tcl-neo*
> Conclusion: neowebscript is not only unmaintained in ports, but
> also unmaintained upstream.
Both were maintained in the ports as much as was needed to ensure successful 
builds -- until some busybody came along to remove the perfectly functional 
databases/db2 -- on bogus grounds.
> I do concur with Wesley Shields and Eitan Adler that we don't need
> unmaintained software in the ports tree
I'm well familiar with this line of reasoning and reject it. As long as the port 
builds -- and has no known unpatched security holes -- it is "maintained" and 
should not be removed. All other reasons: "too old", "not used by anybody I 
know", etc. are subjective and are based of non-existent statistics. Though 
tcl-neo* themselves stopped building, this was a result of the (gratuitous) 
removal of db2 -- and whoever was behind that removal, was supposed to fix the 
fallout, or, better yet, find some other application for their energy.

That a package is discontinued up-stream is not a good reason for removal at all 
-- not until you remove games/bsdgames and the entire KDE3 (for just some 

That said, I'm not insisting, the ports be resurrected and will not be doing it 
myself out of spite. I'm no longer using the software, and neither does the 
client, for whom I originally ported it. But I don't like this drive to remove 
working ports, in which the energetic removers see no value personally, and 
restate this position again because, evidently, certain active decision-makers 
weren't aware of it...



More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list