Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 09:42:36 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Rusmir Dusko <nemysis@FreeBSD.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r352089 - head/print/detex Message-ID: <20140425094236.GA17150@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <535A1FD1.4050000@marino.st> References: <201404250715.s3P7FSaK088998@svn.freebsd.org> <535A17DB.3070300@marino.st> <20140425083031.GA95184@FreeBSD.org> <535A1FD1.4050000@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 10:41:53AM +0200, John Marino wrote: > Part of the fallacy of "why delete a working port" is ignoring the fact > the port is only working because others have been maintaining the port > for years (more than a decade). This is easily verified by looking at > freshports and seeing numerous commits well after the port maintainer > threw it back on the heap. > > So to imply that it's no effort to it (look, it builds!) ignores all the > collective effort that's already been spent on it. I don't quite get this; so actually deleting working port does not ignore all that collective effort, is that right? :) And as one of those who like to pick some random ports from time to time and fix them, I'm far from implying that there's no effort; quite on the contrary: this work takes time. > And frankly nobody can claim that it's been maintained and works correctly > and has no vulnerabilities / all options make sense / etc -- only that it > builds. The problem is that there is something worse than no maintainer: bad one. It is silly to assume that de jure maintained port is free from unpatched vulnerabilities and works for everyone; at least with unmaintained ports, it is clear that users probably have to lower their expectations. AFAIR, we (FreeBSD) already make it pretty clear that we cannot guarantee that everything that comes from Ports is flawless. If this is not enough, we can augment it to explicitly drop any claims for unmaintained ports. > Hell, who knows if the port even has any users anymore? nobody is > looking at these aspects. It may not have any users today, yet have 1 or 10 tomorrow. > So I am on the other side. It's fine to have collective maintenance for > a reasonable amount of time until the port can be adopted again. For > me, that reasonable time does not extend more than a decade. I understand how it might look; in fact, I wouldn't mind deprecating these ports, but without setting expiration date (for those with no other issues). ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140425094236.GA17150>