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 ...

[Antoine Brodin]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe at freebsd.org> 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@?

Hi,

>From the porters handbook: "Unmaintained ports are listed with a
maintainer of ports at FreeBSD.org".

> 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.

This was a mistake on your side,  if you care enough about a port but
don't want to update it (strange idea if the port is in a good shape),
 you should keep yourself as a maintainer and add a comment like "Feel
free to update this port without prior approval", or give
maintainership to an active team that really cares about this port.
The ports tree is not the Museum of Antiquities.

Cheers,

Antoine