Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 13 Sep 2011 18:44:35 +0200
From:      Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>
To:        "Julian H. Stacey" <jhs@berklix.com>
Cc:        freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: deprecated because: Development has ceased??? Maybe development is *complete*
Message-ID:  <4E6F8873.5070403@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <201109122058.p8CKwhZS095221@fire.js.berklix.net>
References:  <201109122058.p8CKwhZS095221@fire.js.berklix.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 12.09.2011 22:58, schrieb Julian H. Stacey:
>> If the author of another package stated that maintenance ceased, that is
>> no longer the case.  Any why let port users fall into this pit?  They
> 
> You advocate digging the pit. The hole where the ports was.

Nonsense.  It's a wanton exaggeration of someone - you - running out of
objective arguments.

If you'd looked at how I've removed the ports that I have removed, you
know that I spent considerable amounts of time to find suitable
solutions for all users (usually dependent ports).  This included
porting applications to DB 4.X myself so I could remove db2 and db3,
working with other maintainers so we could move lzo users to lzo2, and
thereabouts.

Of course that is separate from the policy discussion, and my stance is
clear. Even if we were to kill all deprecated ports now we'd have more
than 20,000 to choose from.

Keeping explosive garbage around just in case someone might want to
blast his feet away with isn't maintenance, quality, or useful.  We
don't lose ports along that deprecation way that users would cheer
about, else we'd have a lot of shouting going on already after the
earlier deprecation rounds that have been run already.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4E6F8873.5070403>