Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:52:31 -0900 From: Beech Rintoul <beech@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com> Subject: Re: Dead projects in ports tree Message-ID: <200902282152.31308.beech@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <18857.62445.427549.190772@jerusalem.litteratus.org> References: <7d6fde3d0902281509v6a98521as618421daf52b3abe@mail.gmail.com> <49a9eea5.Ke%2BY8TkWIWKHBRfY%perryh@pluto.rain.com> <18857.62445.427549.190772@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 28 February 2009 17:33:17 Robert Huff wrote: > perryh@pluto.rain.com writes: > > > multimedia/openquicktime - no movement in CVS / SVN for 1+ years; > > > no releases in the past 3 years > > > > This strikes me as slim evidence on which to seek a death sentence :) > > > > While I can't testify to the usefulness of this particular port, > > the fact that something has not changed in a long time could just > > as well mean that it does its job well -- and thus does not need > > to be updated -- as that it is no longer useful. > > Are there criteria - or even guidelines - for when a port > should be reaped? Sure, if the port has been broken for more than 6 months, it's abandoned (website is gone and port isn't fetchable from outside mirrors) or it's been replaced. Beech -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Beech Rintoul - FreeBSD Developer - beech@FreeBSD.org /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | FreeBSD Since 4.x \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail | http://people.freebsd.org/~beech X - NO Word docs in e-mail | Skype: akbeech / \ - http://www.FreeBSD.org/releases/7.1R/announce.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200902282152.31308.beech>