Google Code as an upstream is gone

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

> Christian Weisgerber wrote on 09/29/2016 18:57:
> > Mathieu Arnold:
> >
> >> If the software has not been moved to some other place, (it takes about
> >> 30 seconds to click the automatic migration to github thing, and it is
> >> usually done within the hour,) since march 2015, it is most likely
> >> abandoned and should not be kept in the ports tree.
> >
> > That's a bold new policy.
> >
> > In the past, if the upstream was gone and the maintainer judged the
> > software still useful (at their discretion, not based on a cut-off
> > date), they would even fall back to providing the distfile at
> > people.freebsd.org.
> 
> I don't think it is good to remove ports just because source was not 
> updated for some time. There are ports useful even 10 years after last 
> update. Namely pnm2ppa is really old piece of code. It was removed from 
> ports tree because there was not maintainer. So I must become a 
> maintainer and now the port is alive again.
> I think there should not be policy to remove ports if they have 
> maintainer or some user using them if only thing which should be done is 
> to change SRC url.

I agree, old code does not mean it's useless code.

We probably need a way to find out how often a pkg is downloaded
from a repo to understand which ports/pkg are really used in our
user base. This helps to decide if a port is really no longer in use.

-- 
pi at opsec.eu            +49 171 3101372                         4 years to go !