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 ...

[Alexey Dokuchaev]

On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:59:09PM +0100, Rusmir Dusko wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:16:02 +0000 Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> True when is Upstream alive and not Port have one maintainer, then is good
> to have these Ports.
> 
> Not all Ports must have one maintainer. Please not so simple deprecate good
> Port.

Yes, my point exactly.  I know some people think (and they have their merit)
that having 25K+ ports is unrealistic and quite a few of them are crap.  (I
will probably elaborate more of this in reply to original thread from couple
of weeks ago; still catching up with my email backlog, sorry.)

However, I do believe that we need to have a more formal set of rules when
it comes to ports deprecation (and subsequent removal), esp. given how small
is probation period now (typically one of two months).

IMHO clear candidates for deprecation are BROKEN *and* ports dead upstream.
Others are controversial, and while I can reluctantly agree that "no public
distfiles" sounds like a valid reason alone, unmaintained (in FreeBSD sense)
ports should stay as long as they build (and run, but that's hard to check
universally).

./danfe