From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 27 21:45:12 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: cvs-ports@freebsd.org Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 4EBBD16A420; Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:45:12 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 21:45:12 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Tilman Linneweh Message-ID: <20050927214512.GA82806@FreeBSD.org> References: <200509261601.j8QG18hP003665@repoman.freebsd.org> <20050927154404.GA7632@FreeBSD.org> <200509272314.20974.arved@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200509272314.20974.arved@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i 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 21:45:12 -0000 On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 11:14:20PM +0200, Tilman Linneweh wrote: > * 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. I buy your reasoning. Sound fair enough. Thanks! ./danfe