Recent ports removal

[Peter Jeremy]

On 2011-Nov-11 12:40:12 -0800, Stanislav Sedov <stas at deglitch.com> wrote:
>Because portmgr@ is using it?  There're numerous cases when unmaintained, buggy,
>vulnerable and plainly dangerous stuff stays in tree because someone in portmgr
>gang likes it when other applications not used by them being removed without
>prior discussion notice.  Because your opinion doesn't matter.  Neither is mine.

I am getting heartily tired of your continuous tirade against the
portmgr@ community.  Please provide evidence to backup your
accusations or retract them.

As for the removal of obsolete ports - it has been made perfectly
clear on many occasions that a MAINTAINER of ports@ means that port
is _not_ maintained.  If it's a port you use, feel free to take over
maintainership.  Otherwise that port is subject to removal if any
problems with it crop up.

-- 
Peter Jeremy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/attachments/20111113/8d2149a1/attachment.pgp