Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 14:48:50 -0500 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r422154 - head/misc/fortune_strfile Message-ID: <bec7888a-b194-aea6-617d-07877854c841@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <e2accd31-64bf-014a-d182-ab21c07ebf9b@FreeBSD.org> References: <201609141925.u8EJPJb8077087@repo.freebsd.org> <2be2dfc7-2be7-aaf3-7510-58279dea9e37@marino.st> <e2accd31-64bf-014a-d182-ab21c07ebf9b@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9/14/2016 14:44, Bryan Drewery wrote: > On 9/14/16 12:28 PM, John Marino wrote: >> On 9/14/2016 14:25, Bryan Drewery wrote: >>> Author: bdrewery >>> Date: Wed Sep 14 19:25:19 2016 >>> New Revision: 422154 >>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/422154 >>> >>> Log: >>> Mark deprecated as it has no maintainer and is already in base. >>> >>> With hat: portmgr >>> >> >> >> Really? >> >> Very mature and classy. >> I solved a problem and you're flexing muscles. >> >> Are all portmanagers on board with this? >> >> John >> >> P.S. If you want, I'll get into a commit war and take it back. You'll win. >> > > Ports need maintainers. It is standard practice to deprecate ports > without a maintainer, though usually after a much longer time frame. We > can either do this right away or let this rot for that period and waste > time on the package build cluster. Portmgr's who have weighed in on > this are in agreement that the port never should have been committing > and dropped like it was, and there is growing consensus that it should > just be deleted. So I've marked it deprecated. > > It's also questionable why we need this at all since it is in base > already and is not receiving updates. If we had a packaged base system > it would perhaps make sense to have a port, but we're not there yet. I > have not seen any valid justification for the port in the first place. > > Also, there are no "laws" here except for the CoC. There are only > conventions and guidelines, and portmgr has the ultimate say over ports > as a whole. This clearly was committed/dropped against the spirit of > the conventions, regardless of any pedantic reading of any guideline. > I find it extremely doubtful you don't understand the point of the fix. I'm trying to decide whether or not to start shucking off many more (all?) of the 70 ports that I current maintain because I really don't need this vindictive grief. I thought we were past all this. JOhn --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bec7888a-b194-aea6-617d-07877854c841>