Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 11:03:47 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Andrey Chernov <ache@freebsd.org>, marino@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r402813 - head/misc/astrolog Message-ID: <565EC203.2020204@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <565EBFA4.2010101@freebsd.org> References: <201512020629.tB26TbDb060296@repo.freebsd.org> <565E9DFA.6050502@marino.st> <565EAB52.6010301@freebsd.org> <565EAD1E.8080805@marino.st> <565EB1AC.4000508@freebsd.org> <565EB3B7.8030208@marino.st> <565EB894.4090402@freebsd.org> <565EBB1F.20208@marino.st> <565EBFA4.2010101@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/2/2015 10:53 AM, Andrey Chernov wrote: >> It's a solution seeking a problem. >> There's no problem. What we have now works. > > I congratulate you with that, but sorry, I have no willing to continue > our conversation further than this message. Of course, you are not > obligated to consider my personal circumstances and even other people > with similar situation exists they not raising their hands. What's the problem? Your circumstances prevent you from being a maintainer of a port that nobody else thinks enough of to maintain. The solution is you commit to it when you can. Nobody is going to purge an "unmaintained" port that get committed to regularly and builds fine. Hence, there's no problem, even considering your circumstance. > >> I just objected to you thinking that a full-up upgrade of a port is an >> obligation for somebody that notices a port doesn't build and marks it >> broken. > > I already told you that there was no "obligation" word in my thinking, > only wishes and suggestions, but you just ignore being occupied with > your preconception. No, I am occupied with the words you concretely wrote on the commit log. You wrote them. It is NOT a preception. Please stand by what you wrote and don't try to imply that I have a mental issue. > Do you think that people respond only to obligations and not wishes and > suggestions? It was rhetorical question, please don't answer. The "suggestion" was not a fair one. It was not posted in the form of a wish. It was clear you disapproved how how the previous committer handled the port. > I don't suggest to change the word to "unmaintained", I just point that > it will be more logical to indicate no contact with it, following your > idea of what unmaintained is, than give false impression that somebody > with free time from ports@ will deal with. I have no argument with that. > No, I mean your words "because I would sooner deprecate an unmaintained > port than fix it", assuming you decide to do that en masse. Not at all. My commit history shows I have modernized hundreds of unmaintained ports. My commit above just means there is a threshold of pain, and if the port in question exceeds that threshold IMO, then the port is getting deprecated. Some deprecations get removed because somebody fixes the port, most don't and the port is pruned, as it should be. The process works well enough. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?565EC203.2020204>