Python 2.7 removal outline

Miroslav Lachman 000.fbsd at quip.cz
Thu Mar 25 22:06:49 UTC 2021


On 25/03/2021 16:03, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:

> I will only here answer about the quality of the communication of portmgr, yes
> there is room of improvement in general in the current portmgr team as of how we
> do communicate about plans and policy and we are working on it.

"There is room of improvement" are too kind words.
It happened in the past and it is back again. As explained by Olivier 
and the others in this thread there are no clear policy written and 
explained to the community, there are mixed terms "all" / "but some 
exceptions" chosen by what criteria, defined by what policy?
It is really annoying for maintainers like Olivier to spend some time to 
provide solution for port useful for others (Pale Moon and Tauthon in 
this case) and have it removed from the tree after 4 hours without prior 
discussion or notice.
Who will benefit from this behaviors?
It all seems more like witch hunting than any rational moves for 
community profit.

Telling users that they can maintain it locally is like p***ing them in 
face. And until overlays are not fully supported with poudriere options 
and easily defined exceptions for MOVED entries it is really not for 
everybody to use overlays in current state (overlays are poor documented 
at least).

Miroslav Lachman


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list