FreeBSD ports which are currently scheduled for deletion
lists at opsec.eu
Sat May 24 18:05:58 UTC 2014
Matthew Rezny wrote:
> If you don't like it, then don't do it, but don't stand in the way of anyone
> else that does. Also, cut the crap. If maintainer is ports@, then what that
> literally means is the ports community as a whole is maintaining those ports.
> If they are not maintained by anyone, then the maintainer should be NULL.
>From my point of view, having a way to express the difference
is a valid open issue. There are many open issues, and time is really scarce.
> Also, I've done the steps of fix, stage, and claim maintership. The issue is
> "honestly be the maintainer". How can I honestly call myself the maintainer
> when I can't actually do anything to the port myself.
If you want to change things directly in the ports tree, you have to
become a ports committer. For this, some committer or two need to
be your mentors (I'm still being mentored, so...). All (most?) committers
are very busy, that's the general problem.
> Sure, there's always disagreements, but part of keeping a functioning
> community depends on minimizing disagreement. I'm not saying
> staging should be dropped, but making it a requirement for commit
> just deters other bugs from getting fixed. "Ooh, I could fix this,
> but then I have to stage it too... meh, fuck it."
That's seldom the real problem. Finding time to fix anything is
the problem, mostly.
> that were not handled, or were handled all the way up to the last step and
> then forgotten. i.e. ports/188784
@work. Building in poudriere right now.
> > you already have the figures (~4700 ports), but here's a dynamic list:
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/notstaged.txt
It's already down to 3446 right now.
> I had kept distance from getting involved in the ports side because it always
> looked like a cesspool. After long enough avoiding it, I made the mistake of
> stepping in. Knee deep in this shitmess, I have a choice to make.
I agree that there was a lot of change in the ports tree recently.
But: There is a reason for this: The ports tree has to be cleaner
so that it can provide better automatic processes to the users.
It's not easy, but it's getting there.
Please add civility and patches/PRs to the process, this would help
us tremendously. A long rant is sometimes helpful, but if it gets
too angry, it alienates others.
> I can keep
> throwing patches at PRs and hope somebody might just commit them,
> or I can say screw it all and just fork the ports tree in a public repo.
Provide PRs, send me a Cc: and I can have a look at them.
pi at opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 6 years to go !
More information about the freebsd-ports