svn commit: r347539 - in head: biology/genpak biology/rasmol cad/chipmunk databases/typhoon databases/xmbase-grok devel/asl devel/flick devel/happydoc devel/ixlib devel/p5-Penguin-Easy editors/axe ...

[John Marino]

On 3/27/2014 12:16, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 10:26:22PM +0000, Antoine Brodin wrote:
>> New Revision: 347539
>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/347539
>> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r347539/
>>
>> Log:
>>   Deprecate a few unmaintained ports (leaf ports, non staged and
>>   unmaintained since more than 12 years)
> 
> Antoine,
> 
> Can you clarify a bit on what does "unmaintained" mean in this context?
> Does it mean dead upstream, or MAINTAINER=ports@?
> 
> If it's the former, I'm fine with it, but deprecating unbroken, possibly
> alive ports merely based on MAINTAINER lines does not seem right to me.
> 
> E.g. I've set a few of my ports free (that is, relinquished control over to
> ports@) to let others do occasional updates or minor tweaks without having
> to wait for me to approve their changes.  It works well enough for simple
> ports that are hard to damage by careless committing which had sadly become
> quite popular recently.

I am fine with this policy.
If not a single committer can be bothered to adopt it in order to save
it, then it's probably not worth saving.  All it takes is one guy to
take it over for a few months and slyly throw it back on the heap to
reset the 12 year clock.  Hopefully in that time he/she would actually
review the port and update as necessary (in my experience these ancient
ports do need a lot of TLC, they don't age all that well).

Keep doing this -- it's justifiable.  The person should not release
ports they actually care about if the policy bothers them.

John