Removed ports - looking from the bench

[Greg Byshenk]

On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 01:05:49PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 06:48:30PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote:
> > On 10 September 2011 18:15, Chad Perrin <code at apotheon.net> wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 04:45:02PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I want to make installing dead ports harder for users.
> > >
> > > Why?
> > 
> > Someone who wants to install a port that has been deprecated and
> > removed should really have enough skills to check a port out of the
> > Attic at least-- it's one command line. I don't see how much simpler
> > it could get:
> 
> This does not answer my question.  I find the very concept of wanting to
> make it harder for a user to install software bizarre.  I could
> understand wanting to achieve some other goal, and suffering the
> unfortunate case of making it harder to install something, but I do not
> understand the simple fact of wanting to make life harder for others,
> unless it is a matter of pure spite.  Thus my question:
> 
> Why?

Because, in the cases here under discussion, there is somethin "wrong"
(for some value of 'wrong') with the software in question.  I can't
speak for Matthias or Chris, but I think the point here is that (at 
least some) people don't want to make foot-shooting easier.

Someone who can't figure out how to install some software if it takes
more than 'portinstall <software>' almost certainly isn't knowledgeable
enough to evaluate the risks of installing buggy, exploitable, or 
unmaintained software.


-- 
greg byshenk  -  gbyshenk at byshenk.net  -  Leiden, NL