From owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Sep 28 12:23:37 2010
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033)
	id B3E2E1065679; Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:23:37 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:23:36 +0000
From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
To: Emanuel Haupt <ehaupt@FreeBSD.org>
Message-ID: <20100928122336.GB32589@FreeBSD.org>
References: <201009272151.o8RLpA8I002279@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<20100928024255.GA61304@FreeBSD.org>
	<20100928075649.c3bcb0a9.ehaupt@FreeBSD.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20100928075649.c3bcb0a9.ehaupt@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/sysutils/screenie Makefile pkg-descr
X-BeenThere: cvs-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the ports tree <cvs-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ports>,
	<mailto:cvs-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:23:37 -0000

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 07:56:49AM +0200, Emanuel Haupt wrote:
> Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> > But the port does not look BROKEN, why deprecating it?  I mean, it
> > can still be useful for some people despite that development ceased.
> 
> It is not BROKEN but as Doug pointed out, I felt that this port has
> passed the point of its usefulnes. With currently 4835 unmaintained
> ports in our tree I took a bit more aggressive aproach and marked it
> for deletion. If until then no one steps in, it will leave a reference
> in MOVED and can always be brought back. However, extending the
> expiration date to 3 months seems like a good idea, that way automated
> reminder mails (are there still mechanisms?) can reach a larger
> audience of possible interested people.

I am thinking that there might be users who do not really want to become
maintainer of otherwise perfectly working port (for them).  Hence my
point of that we should probably deprecate ports that have some
run-time/build problems, not just mere lack of development.

./danfe