Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 14 Sep 2016 07:31:28 -0500
From:      Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com>
To:        marino@freebsd.org
Cc:        Mathieu Arnold <mat@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r422114 - head/misc/fortune_strfile
Message-ID:  <20160914123128.GA32707@lonesome.com>
In-Reply-To: <40537f68-1d2b-194c-55d5-b133d743ed3e@marino.st>
References:  <201609140545.u8E5jeBH058686@repo.freebsd.org> <eb09770a-b234-f889-2f2c-d6127ab76cc7@FreeBSD.org> <40537f68-1d2b-194c-55d5-b133d743ed3e@marino.st>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 07:21:08AM -0500, John Marino wrote:
> I met the requirements of the policy.

IMHO, yes, you have.

But I remember when we discussed the policy, the idea was to prevent
this number from growing:

  Number of ports with no maintainer: 4814 (18.4%)

Note that that number does not include group-maintained ports (e.g.
gnome@, perl@).  That's just ports@ per se.

My own opinion is that 4814 is way too many.  And, I don't buy the
argument that some have made that "unmaintained ports are better
maintained than some maintained ports".

My own personal belief, stated at the time when I was on portmgr,
was that unmaintained ports contributed to bitrot.

Obligatory disclaimer: I am no longer on portmgr.

mcl



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20160914123128.GA32707>