Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 11:36:38 +0100 From: "Pietro Cerutti" <gahr@gahr.ch> To: Matthias Andree <mandree@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Deprecation campaign Message-ID: <20110317103637.GB7901@gahrfit.gahr.ch> In-Reply-To: <4D81D3AD.7040007@FreeBSD.org> References: <20110316233326.GA68341@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <4D818EFD.3060602@yandex.ru> <4D81D3AD.7040007@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2011-Mar-17, 10:26, Matthias Andree wrote: > Am 17.03.2011 05:33, schrieb Ruslan Mahmatkhanov: > > 17.03.2011 02:33, Michel Talon =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > >> Hello, > >> > >> i noted that ucpp is deprecated because it cannot be fetched > >> from original site. This is an alternate c preprocessor > >> supposed to be better than the gnu one, written by Thomas > >> Pornin. I happen to know the guy (*), so i searched if > >> the soft had been moved, and indeed it can be found here: > >> http://code.google.com/p/ucpp/ > >> I hope you may reconsider your decision. > >> > >> With my best regards > >> > >> (*) i think he now runs a crypto firm in the Boston area. > > > > I've tried to adopt the port to new distfile.. > > It builds but doesn't produce ucpp binary. > > Maybe you or anybody can look what's wrong. >=20 > Guys, >=20 > all these efforts to rescue the ports are all good, but: do we actually= =20 > _need_ the ports? Just having one more port isn't a value in itself. It's a potential value. Having one port less is a potential loss. > And if yes, can someone step up to become maintainer of the port,=20 > meaning, upgrade it to new versions, sort FreeBSD bug reports and=20 > forward/file them with the upstream authors, and all that? Well, this is not how it works. There are a lot of old ports which are not being developped upstreams anymore. Probably nobody is interested in maintaining those, because there's nothing to do to those ports other than fixing potential build problems. However, this doesn't imply that the port is useless or that nobody's interested in using it. Not all consumers of FreeBSD ports follow ports@. I'd be very carful on killing ports. I agree on killing BROKEN ports where the distfiles are not fetchable anymore. In this case, nobody can benefit from having the (non working) port. But I wouldn't go further. And I'd welcome ANY effort to resurrect a port or make it workable again, even if it does not imply setting a real MAINTAINER. --=20 Pietro Cerutti The FreeBSD Project gahr@FreeBSD.org PGP Public Key: http://gahr.ch/pgp --HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk2B5DUACgkQwMJqmJVx945NVQCeOdaLzVasYGW2VYOIZqoF+mNw 5IYAn0qyNGiPFzz1QReb+FhStqOaun+Q =6eeE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HlL+5n6rz5pIUxbD--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110317103637.GB7901>