Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 19:47:33 +1000 From: Dylan Leigh <fbsd@dylanleigh.net> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Future of (upstream unmaintained) sysutils/autopsy port Message-ID: <20140710094733.GA13259@exhan.dylanleigh.net> In-Reply-To: <CAF6rxg=H5z7xtuha0m37=F7zHQ0oLa5UHyp%2BJa60nnHAGdj=Sw@mail.gmail.com> References: <20140703003924.GA6592@exhan.dylanleigh.net> <CAF6rxg=H5z7xtuha0m37=F7zHQ0oLa5UHyp%2BJa60nnHAGdj=Sw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 07:15:14PM -0700, Eitan Adler wrote: > On 2 July 2014 17:39, Dylan Leigh <fbsd@dylanleigh.net> wrote: > > 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? > > It is fine to maintain unchanged upstream ports provided they have an > active downstream maintainer. The only concern is patches: the ports > tree must not become a repo by which the upstream port is continued to > be developed. If you just want to make sure that the port remains > "available" this is perfectly fine. Thanks for the advice, I've filed #191778 to take maintainership and fix the problems with the port. https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191778 -- Dylan -- Dylan Leigh // VU# s4081906 // www.dylanleigh.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140710094733.GA13259>