From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 3 02:05:07 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3295548 for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 02:05:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-x233.google.com (mail-pa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5A6C2C9F for ; Thu, 3 Jul 2014 02:05:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id hz1so13491409pad.24 for ; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 19:05:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=EGcKkhe+q0z7iD2AYdA8lOSN+CN+0UVvLIAHEioRfiE=; b=t8mCcJUaB+tHaDy6q8xQo11d+PBz5OaCoN+FcSqovkma0UfB13ix6F9UWO2g+gdvLT GKMhQBXf9blmR7XONaV4TQYal3kv5LfIgsLCS53VZRbFN0aLNSAeDPinuiY2ISNDVFo8 E6RxwemG5sxPRSd5tPQfQMuYsMKp/7eDXGXAn0F5N6tmNqPKnueUspuNV7soqTviPwhR cjPazvbOGvl3QbC7pyK/WdhvQiOC7R++GBuEndg9rshsTTV7u32Aj7H8lS5cxbbKbOid 49dT1vkScqURu8IFW+o0b2nJrYqxwroSz5U5LKVOxGqu0wGfRyM2/qN+4A9tAV6fwi6p yUoA== X-Received: by 10.66.174.199 with SMTP id bu7mr1675720pac.54.1404353106208; Wed, 02 Jul 2014 19:05:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:44b8:31ae:7b00:1150:8648:fc49:e3e7? (2001-44b8-31ae-7b00-1150-8648-fc49-e3e7.static.ipv6.internode.on.net. [2001:44b8:31ae:7b00:1150:8648:fc49:e3e7]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id av2sm38925089pbc.16.2014.07.02.19.05.04 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Jul 2014 19:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Kubilay Kocak Message-ID: <53B4BA4B.1080700@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 12:04:59 +1000 From: Kubilay Kocak Reply-To: koobs@FreeBSD.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dylan Leigh , ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Future of (upstream unmaintained) sysutils/autopsy port References: <20140703003924.GA6592@exhan.dylanleigh.net> In-Reply-To: <20140703003924.GA6592@exhan.dylanleigh.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2014 02:05:07 -0000 On 3/07/2014 10:39 AM, Dylan Leigh wrote: > From the ports-expiring-soon messages: >> portname: sysutils/autopsy >> description: Web-based (graphical) interface to The Sleuth Kit >> maintainer: ports@FreeBSD.org >> deprecated because: Unmaintained interactive port >> expiration date: 2014-08-20 >> build errors: none. >> overview: http://portsmon.FreeBSD.org/portoverview.py?category=sysutils&portname=autopsy > > I am considering taking maintainership of sysutils/autopsy to > save it. I have used Autopsy before for a forensics course and > have some old saved "cases". The port is already staged and > could be made non-interactive easily. > > On the other hand, I strongly discourage anyone from actually > using Autopsy except to read old files/cases. > > The cross-platform version is no longer maintained (new version > 3 is Windows only) and was last updated in 2010. Even then it > had serious flaws and is less capable than the commandline tools > it interfaces with (sysutils/sleuthkit). I always suggest that > the SleuthKit tools be used directly instead, but there are some > students who are too scared of the commandline and want to use > Autopsy because it provides a GUI. > > So there are some good reasons for depreciating it which have nothing > to do with the port itself being unmaintained + interactive. > > Is there any policy on keeping ports where upstream is not > maintained and the software itself is depreciated (except to > open and export old files)? Do we still want to keep such a port > in the active tree? > > Dylan, tldr: If a port is maintained (has a maintainer, and can keep up with framework changes if required), it is welcome. If you would like to take maintainership, please create a Bugzilla issue to that affect and reply here with the issue ID, so that someone can commit the change for you. -- koobs