svn commit: r535306 - in branches/2020Q2: . dns dns/bind914 dns/dnsperf net/samba410

[Mathieu Arnold]

On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 10:08:41AM +0800, Ben Woods wrote:
> On Sun, 31 May 2020 at 08:07, Ben Woods <woodsb02 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 16 May 2020 at 00:42, Mathieu Arnold <mat at freebsd.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Author: mat
> >> Date: Fri May 15 16:42:41 2020
> >> New Revision: 535306
> >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/535306
> >>
> >> Log:
> >>   Remove expired ports:
> >>
> >>   dns/dnsperf: depends on expired dns/bind914, not compatible with
> >> dns/bind916
> >>   2020-04-30 dns/bind914: End of life, please migrate to a newer version
> >> of BIND9
> >>
> >> Deleted:
> >>   branches/2020Q2/dns/bind914/
> >>   branches/2020Q2/dns/dnsperf/
> >> Modified:
> >>   branches/2020Q2/MOVED
> >>   branches/2020Q2/dns/Makefile   (contents, props changed)
> >>   branches/2020Q2/net/samba410/Makefile   (contents, props changed)
> >>
> >
> > Hi Mat,
> >
> > Can I please ask what the logic was for doing this in a quarterly branch?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Ben
> >
> 
> Hi again,
> 
> For the record, I am not against this change. In fact, I think it is going
> to make it easier to backport the latest security update to net/samba410
> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=246721
> 
> I was just surprised to see expired ports removed from quarterly, rather
> than just being done in head and aging out when the next quarterly branch
> occurs on 1 July.
> 
> I guess what I am asking is - what is the procedure for expired ports in
> quarterly, and is this documented somewhere?

It is not documented.  It happens very very rarely, the only reason I
removed it was because of circumstances, and all these reasons:
 - It had expired (and was no longer in head)
 - It was no longer supported upstream
 - There was a large security issue with it.

The impending security issue was embargoed when I removed the port,
which is why it was not mentionned in the commit message.  And I removed
the port early because it was a security issue and it felt better to get
rid of it early rather than wait.

-- 
Mathieu Arnold
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 963 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-branches/attachments/20200602/b782e2b5/attachment.sig>