recent ports removal

[Doug Barton]

On 09/30/2011 11:05, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
> Doug Barton wrote on 30.09.2011 22:04:
>> On 09/30/2011 02:54, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
>>> Doug Barton wrote on 30.09.2011 13:50:
>>>> On 09/30/2011 02:40, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
>>>>> Hi, Doug.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just removed www/pyblosxom. But we have a pr, that update it to
>>>>> latest (not-vulnerable) version: http://bugs.freebsd.org/160682.
>>>>
>>>> Julien took that PR, when he's ready to do the update he can pull the
>>>> files out of the Attic.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Doug
>>>
>>> Ok, but as far i recall, there in ports@ was sounded a policy like "we
>>> do not remove the ports with open pr's on them".
>>
>> I think you misunderstand what "remove" means in this context. :)  Or
>> perhaps you've never worked with a version control system ... It's
> 
> [just for thrulz]
> Yes, it's my second day around the computer system.
> [/just for thrulz]

I meant no offense. I don't know you, so I have no idea what your
experience is or isn't. :)

> I understand that it can be restored in one click, but what the point to
> remove it in first place if it known that someone already working on it
> and will undelete it in near time?

Because if, for whatever reason, Julien decides not to update it then
removing it on schedule is the safest course of action.

> As far i understand it makes commiter's life little a bit harder

No, it really, REALLY doesn't. Seriously.

> and most important - it confuses the
> users, who actually using this ports.

Which is more confusing to users:

1. Port is scheduled for removal, never gets updated, never gets removed.
2. Port that they cannot install anyway disappears for a short time,
then reappears in a usable, non-vulnerable state?

Also, please keep in mind that nothing depends on the ports that I
removed, so at worst we're talking a minor inconvenience for someone who
already has the port installed.

> Ok, actually i'm asking all this questions in first place because your
> action on pyblosxom did not conform with this sentence by bapt@:
> 
> """
>> How can ports be removed if the solutions for them is in gnats?
>>
> 
> They won't before deleting ports, we always check gnats, if a PR exists
> then we leave the ports so that the PR can be committed
> """
> 
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-September/069998.html
> 
> So i'm just curious what is the agreed policy about such ports? Please
> don't get me wrong.

Insert the word "permanently" in front of "deleting" in that sentence,
and I think you'll get the right idea.


hth,

Doug

-- 

	Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
			-- OK Go

	Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
	Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/