Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:04:24 -0400 From: Jerry <jerry@seibercom.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/games/8kingdoms Makefile ports/misc/airoflash Makefile ports/graphics/autopano-sift Makefile ports/x11/avant-window-navigator-xfce4 Makefile ports/lang/boo Makefile ports/x11/cl-clx-sbcl Makefile ports/palm/coldsync ... Message-ID: <20120410090424.5511702c@scorpio> In-Reply-To: <20120410124009.GE5264@lonesome.com> References: <201204092351.q39Npi6F025202@repoman.freebsd.org> <20120410091537.GK98668@gahrfit.gahr.ch> <20120410114537.GL17460@culot.org> <20120410115630.GB2456@lonesome.com> <CAOfEmZgaagMqBq_690E9a4yo=vJ6Lnet-PAOrHi6c8e2xpfrTA@mail.gmail.com> <20120410124009.GE5264@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:40:09 -0500 Mark Linimon articulated: > Finally, I agree that FreeBSD can't "guarantee" any given ports will > work, but I think we owe the users the effort to make sure if a port > is included, it's at least not completely useless. To "guarantee" that the port will work is certainly beyond the scope of the ports system; however, to guarantee that it is fetch-able and build-able is an implied action by the simple fact that it is included in the ports structure. If, after a reasonable amount of time, a solution for a port's inability to properly build or if the port is just plain not able to be fetched, then it should be removed from the port system. There is no upside to keeping ports that will not build, or cannot be fetched. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120410090424.5511702c>