From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Aug 5 04:24:14 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981B11065670; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 04:24:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (pancho.soaustin.net [76.74.250.40]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72CD28FC0C; Fri, 5 Aug 2011 04:24:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 1BAEE5615B; Thu, 4 Aug 2011 23:08:13 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2011 23:08:13 -0500 From: Mark Linimon To: Alexey Dokuchaev Message-ID: <20110805040813.GA8943@lonesome.com> References: <201108011706.p71H6a0p020907@repoman.freebsd.org> <20110802004928.GA41005@FreeBSD.org> <20110803162620.GA29675@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110803162620.GA29675@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, Baptiste Daroussin , cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/audio/aube Makefile ports/x11-wm/epiwm Makefile ports/astro/gkrellmoon Makefile ports/audio/gkrellmss Makefile ports/astro/gkrellsun Makefile ports/audio/gnapster Makefile ports/audio/gtkgep Makefile ports/audio/midimountain Makefile ... X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 04:24:14 -0000 On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 04:26:20PM +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > But if mastersite is still up'n'running, how can we declare that they > are abandoned by upstream? Because the upstream says that they no longer support the software? > > No upstream == most of the time no maintainenance, no more patches, no > > more security concern. For us it also mean more things to take care of, > > Maybe that means that the software is stable and "just works". Why patch > it then? :-) We've seen plenty of evidence of how badly ports bitrot when new compilers come in, not to mention changes in libc and other places in src. > But mere lack of maintainer or recent upstream activity is not enough: > lots of programs happen to just work so no new version is actually that > needed In that case, some FreeBSD committer should agree to become the upstream, once the upstream is no longer interested; or find someone else out on the Internet to do so. IMHO. > unmaintained ports often get much better care from Kato compared to plethora > of low quality "maintainer update" PRs that get committed these days. Please, when you find a low-quality commit (in terms of functionality -- I know that you and I will not agree on cosmetics), then please bring them to the attention of portmgr. And, not all the Kato-submitted PRs are of equal quality. > Unfortunately, very few maintainers are top-notch folks, I think this is an unnecessary slam on our maintainers. I will agree that some maintainers are much more rigorous than others, of course. > and The Project currently has no educational programs to improve this > situation Most of the education goes on behind the scenes, in private email, on IRC, and so forth. My view, which I know I have repeated before, is that posting generalities to the mailing lists does not solve specific problems. I believe that identifying the specific problems and working the the maintainers and committers one-on-one is a much more effective approach, and that's the approach I take. e.g., I try to follow the management dictum "praise in public, criticize in private", especially with new contributors. YMMV. mcl