From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 27 21:14:34 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29EBE16A41F; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:14:34 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from arved@freebsd.org) Received: from 21322530218.direct.eti.at (21322530218.direct.eti.at [213.225.30.218]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F01143D80; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:14:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from arved@freebsd.org) Received: from mchammer.arved.de (mchammer.arved.de [192.168.3.8]) by 21322530218.direct.eti.at (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8RLELj2009640; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:14:21 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from arved@freebsd.org) From: Tilman Linneweh Organization: FreeBSD.org To: Alexey Dokuchaev Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 23:14:20 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <200509261601.j8QG18hP003665@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050927154404.GA7632@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20050927154404.GA7632@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200509272314.20974.arved@freebsd.org> Cc: cvs-ports@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/audio/musicbox Makefile ports/misc/peq Makefile ports/games/pp Makefile ports/x11-toolkits/qt145 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: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:14:34 -0000 * Alexey Dokuchaev [Tuesday, 27. September 2005 17:44 ]: > > Mark qt1 (QT4 is already released) and all ports depending on it as > > DEPRECATED and set an EXPIRATION_DATE. > > But is there anything wrong with these ports? I see no reason to > abandon things just because they use some old, but stable toolkit with > no security issues (presumably). Did you verify that there are no security issues? There have been security advisories for QT (a quick google search turns up CAN-2004-0691 - CAN-2004-0693). What else justifies starting the Expiration period: * qt2 hit the ports tree in 1999 (more than 6 years ago), qt1 is not old, it is stoneold. If somebody cared about the remaining apps, he would have started porting them to qt3 in the last 6 years. * qt1 does not compile with gcc3.x ( We are just entering the age of gcc4.x). Today nobody wants to develop C++ applications with gcc 2.x. If someone was interested in this port he would have merged the patches to make qt1 compile with gcc3 from pkgsrc or OpenBSD. * qt4 will soon hit the ports tree. Having and "old, but stable" qt3 and a new shiny version of qt is enough IMHO The EXPIRATION_DATE feature was specially introduced to find out if someone is still interested in these ports. So if you still think we need to keep this ports, feel to grab maintainership and remove the EXPIRATION_DATE. regards tilman