From owner-freebsd-ports Sat Apr 20 9:52:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from energyhq.homeip.net (213-97-200-73.uc.nombres.ttd.es [213.97.200.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5144937B41C; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 09:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: by energyhq.homeip.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 2F2BA3FC9D; Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:52:18 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:52:18 +0200 From: Miguel Mendez To: Michael Nottebrock Cc: Maxim Sobolev , Kris Kennaway , Will Andrews , ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: removal of QT1/KDE1 ports Message-ID: <20020420185218.A45466@energyhq.homeip.net> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Nottebrock , Maxim Sobolev , Kris Kennaway , Will Andrews , ports@FreeBSD.ORG 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dDRMvlgZJXvWKvBx" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3CC18EFB.5010307@gmx.net>; from michaelnottebrock@gmx.net on Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 05:53:31PM +0200 Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org --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