Why delete KDE3 ports?
kob6558 at gmail.com
Tue Jan 8 05:37:28 UTC 2013
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Adam Vande More <amvandemore at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:53 PM, John Marino <freebsdml at marino.st> wrote:
>> Here's the issue I think some folks have:
>> "Outdated": debatable. If outdated means a newer release is available,
>> then yes. If "outdated" means it outlived its usefulness, I'd say no. This
>> term seems subjectively used here.
>> "prone to break": Perhaps, but it's not broken now.
>> "possibly insecure": I think this needs to be "known insecure" rather
>> than holding it's last release date against it.
> Probably other security issues as well. I didn't have to look very long.
> In a codebase as large as KDE's, it seems a very slim chance indeed years
> could go by without maintenance and still maintain security.
I have a friend still happily using fvwm (not fvwm2). It is really,
really old, but it still works. It is not subject to deletion because
it still has a maintainer.
Being a maintainer of a port that is not in active development is
really not hard if you use it and can test it. I don't use KDE3, but
someone who does can certainly become maintainer and it won't go away.
If no one cares enough about keeping the port to take over
maintainership, "Say la vee". (For the record, the last real change to
fvwm was almost 4 years ago.)
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
E-mail: kob6558 at gmail.com
More information about the freebsd-ports