Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:52:18 +0200 From: Miguel Mendez <flynn@energyhq.homeip.net> To: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Cc: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.ORG>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, Will Andrews <will@FreeBSD.ORG>, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: removal of QT1/KDE1 ports Message-ID: <20020420185218.A45466@energyhq.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <3CC18EFB.5010307@gmx.net>; from michaelnottebrock@gmx.net on Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 05:53:31PM %2B0200 References: <200204190230.g3J2U5b84091@freefall.freebsd.org> <20020419014600.A32104@xor.obsecurity.org> <20020419124703.GX89460@squall.waterspout.com> <20020419125818.B47724@xor.obsecurity.org> <3CC07B89.29E1C322@FreeBSD.org> <3CC082E5.5050400@gmx.net> <20020420124521.A44482@energyhq.homeip.net> <3CC18EFB.5010307@gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 05:53:31PM +0200, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> People with old hardware really should not use KDE1. Why? Because=20
> development for KDE1 has stopped, development on KDE1 has stopped, bugs=
=20
> aren't getting fixed, nobody supports it (try to file a bug report at=20
It's quite easy to put a small message in there saying: "This port is
unsupported software. Use it at your own risk"
> all modern alternatives are so bloated), there are plenty of=20
> alternatives for setups that require small-footprint desktops, which are=
=20
> still being supported by their developers.
Yes, true. But if we follow Will@'s rationale, why are those old gcc
versions in the ports tree? gcc 2.7 is really old now, let's nuke it
too. If he doesn't want to maintain those ports he (as others have
suggested) can just drop maintainership. I don't see any reason for him
to nuke ports he does not maintain. Choice can never be bad.
IMHO, it should be backed out, at least qt1 and those ports that don't
belong to him. Maybe stop making packages if you want, but at least give
people the choice to have those ports in there would they want to.
Cheers,
--=20
Miguel Mendez - flynn@energyhq.homeip.net
GPG Public Key :: http://energyhq.homeip.net/files/pubkey.txt
EnergyHQ :: http://www.energyhq.tk
FreeBSD - The power to serve!
--dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (FreeBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE8wZzBnLctrNyFFPERAoq+AJ9rqq9qOOwJoNq4o01MRg6eYT0zcwCgyYP4
265Y5DZjG4EVR6b7MXOa6TM=
=ZEiS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx--
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020420185218.A45466>