Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:36:51 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>, Mathieu Arnold <mat@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports MOVED ports/sysutils Makefile ports/sysutils/portindex Makefile distinfo pkg-descr patch-varju Message-ID: <p0611040cbd6bc1d9dc3f@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409131601510.10142-100000@pancho> References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409131601510.10142-100000@pancho>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 4:04 PM -0500 9/13/04, Mark Linimon wrote: >On Mon, 13 Sep 2004, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > >> | Remove port on maintainer/upstream's request >> | >> | PR: ports/71534 >> | Submitted by: maintainer >> | Approved by: portmgr (linimon) >> > > was this a good idea, as it's what a lot of people are using > > because of the portsdb/bdb bug ? > >Well, my view is that if we are asked to remove a port, and the >license is not crystal-clear (which, from reading the source, it >was not), then we are obligated to do so. > >Note: I'm not really happy with this development -- perhaps someone >else can arrange to take it over -- but from my reading of the email >response from the author, this was our only course of action. I suspect it is the correct course of action. Unfortunately. When I see this, all I can think of is that this event (sadly) just proves that the people who suggested other alternatives to the portsdb problem were right for suggesting a "minimal fix" instead of telling people to completely switch over to some new port. A pity, because the port sounded interesting even though I did not have the time to investigate it when the portsdb problem came up. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p0611040cbd6bc1d9dc3f>