Recent ports removal

[Chris Rees]

On 11 November 2011 13:09, Jerry <jerry at seibercom.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:07:08 +0400
> Dmitry Marakasov articulated:
>
>> * Martin Wilke (miwi at FreeBSD.org) wrote:
>>
>> > >> They have been deprecated for a while and noone said anything
>> > >> about those, that is the purpose of the DEPRECATED status. The
>> > >> "not used anymore" mean not used in
>> > > Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken,
>> > > it's useable, you may not remove it, period.
>> > >
>> > >> the portstree (ie no more depended on).
>> > > Most of the portstree is leaf ports, now what?
>> > >
>> > >> If someone really needs it, he can:
>> > > What we need is to not have to do extra work and to not have
>> > > extra noise on the maillist because someone does unneeded things.
>> > > I really don't want to call that vandalism.
>> > >
>> > You can't only put in u have also to put out.
>>
>> Why don't we take out Gnome and KDE then? I don't use it.
>
> That reality might come sooner than you think but for an entirely
> different reason.
>
> http://www.technograte.com/2011/05/18/gnome-to-drop-support-for-bsd-solaris-unix/
>
> http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/05/gnome-to-drop-support-for-bsd-solaris-unix/
>

Hm.

The real problem of course is that although addport is written in
Perl, rmport is written in sh; thus making it much more convenient to
use on a machine without Perl.

Possible solutions:

- Reimport Perl to base
- Rewrite addport to sh (though that would undo a lot of recent work :/)
- Rewrite rmport in perl?

This way we could make a better equilibrium -- a committer looking to
fiddle a category Makefile would no longer be forced to choose between
installing Perl and removing a port, which would remove the incentive
to remove rather than add.

Chris