sysutils/cfs

[Conrad J. Sabatier]

On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 19:05:49 +0200
Matthias Andree <matthias.andree at gmx.de> wrote:

> Am 09.09.2011 11:09, schrieb Conrad J. Sabatier:
> > On Thu, 08 Sep 2011 18:54:36 +0200
> > Matthias Andree <mandree at freebsd.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> No, you'd use a managed installation.  Nobody stands there
> >> pointing a gun at your head and forces you to uninstall a port
> >> that got removed from the ports/ tree.  If people could recognize
> >> that, it might help get the derailed discussion back on the right
> >> track.
> > 
> > You fail to take into account the case where a port may need to be
> > reinstalled.  An extraordinary effort is required if the port no
> > longer exists in the ports tree.
> 
> If a "port may need to be reinstalled" then you failed organize proper
> backups.  Not a valid point here.

Not necessarily.  A simple bump in library versioning could require
ports to be rebuilt.

> > Frankly, I'm growing increasingly concerned that this push to
> > eliminate ports is getting out of control.  I don't much care for
> > the notion that, having invested the time in installing,
> > configuring and tuning a certain set of software packages, suddenly
> > the rug could be pulled out from under me, so to speak, in essence
> > *forcing* me to abandon using certain packages or else deal with
> > maintaining them (in the ports maintainer sense) on my own.
> 
> The rug is pulled by the upstream maintainers abandoning their
> software, not by FreeBSD no longer packaging it years after the fact.

While I understand the reasoning behind this, I still feel that as long
as a package continues to build and run without any known issues, then
why be in a rush to drop it?  The argument that "the ports collection
is not a museum" is valid to some degree, but if a package is still
usable (and useful), then aren't we shooting ourselves in the foot by
dropping it?

-- 
Conrad J. Sabatier
conrads at cox.net