Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 11:16:02 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Antoine Brodin <antoine@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@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: <20140327111602.GA57802@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201403082226.s28MQMtI079354@svn.freebsd.org> References: <201403082226.s28MQMtI079354@svn.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 10:26:22PM +0000, Antoine Brodin wrote: > New Revision: 347539 > URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/347539 > QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r347539/ > > Log: > Deprecate a few unmaintained ports (leaf ports, non staged and > unmaintained since more than 12 years) Antoine, Can you clarify a bit on what does "unmaintained" mean in this context? Does it mean dead upstream, or MAINTAINER=ports@? If it's the former, I'm fine with it, but deprecating unbroken, possibly alive ports merely based on MAINTAINER lines does not seem right to me. E.g. I've set a few of my ports free (that is, relinquished control over to ports@) to let others do occasional updates or minor tweaks without having to wait for me to approve their changes. It works well enough for simple ports that are hard to damage by careless committing which had sadly become quite popular recently. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140327111602.GA57802>