Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:09:13 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Eygene Ryabinkin <rea@freebsd.org>, marino@freebsd.org Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>, Rusmir Dusko <nemysis@FreeBSD.org>, Antoine Brodin <antoine@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r347539 - in head: biology/genpak biology/rasmol cad/chipmunk databases/typhoon databases/xmbase-grok devel/asl devel/flick devel/happydoc devel/ixlib devel/p5-Penguin-Easy editors/axe ... Message-ID: <53343F19.2050304@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <tLFIc4RCIxChhQlvaUAChP9qt7o@DNCjBQ0OuJ6NIRuXBT5yrvdcuOs> References: <201403082226.s28MQMtI079354@svn.freebsd.org> <20140327111602.GA57802@FreeBSD.org> <20140327125909.6b102c8d@nemysis3now> <20140327125136.GC93483@FreeBSD.org> <5334201D.8060704@marino.st> <20140327131819.GE93483@FreeBSD.org> <53342633.2090409@marino.st> <20140327134531.GA16245@FreeBSD.org> <53342D12.5060600@marino.st> <tLFIc4RCIxChhQlvaUAChP9qt7o@DNCjBQ0OuJ6NIRuXBT5yrvdcuOs>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/27/2014 15:47, Eygene Ryabinkin wrote: > John, good day. > > Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 02:52:18PM +0100, John Marino wrote: >> I think it's perfectly legitimate to look at an unmaintained port that >> needs staging and say, "You know what? it's not worth it, nobody cares >> about it, just set it to deprecate and kill it. Why should *I* care >> about this port if nobody else in 12 years has cared about it. > > Please, try to look from the user POV: he doesn't care if the port is > staged, he just needs it. And it is removed. And some other random > OS has 'whack install whazoo' and it works. Guess, what will happen > after some such occurrences of removed ports? Hi Eygene, Okay, your scenario here is that the port got deprecated and removed before any of the users noticed that it was even deprecated. What I've seen happen numerous times is that user that does notice and does care volunteers to be the maintainer (sometimes he does jack-squat after that, but apparently the original intention was good). Which is fine, that is what should happen. Nobody is going to abandon the OS because some port not maintained in 12 years is removed. That suggestion is way too dramatic. The ports are required to be staged and I suspect without exception. If the port is not staged, it is not "legal". Lack of staging is a legitimate reason to remove it (although when is debatable). And I completely disagree with Danfe that we as a group are expected to stage unmaintained ports or ports belonging to others. I am not going to stage Danfe's ports, no way. That's his job and I expect him to do it or release the port. > "Nobody cares" from maintainer community is different thing that > "nobody cares" from user community and, I fear, that we have no > means of determining if the latter is true or not. I guess I disagree with you. If the user doesn't care enough to take over the port, he can't complain too much when it's removed because nobody cares enough about it. Obviously this is spring-cleaning exercise enabled by the stage support regulation. That's how we notice the working ports not maintained for 12+ years. After staging, I doubt you'll see such aggressive remove for a long time. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53343F19.2050304>