From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Thu Sep 29 19:10:39 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 681C1C026D0 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:10:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@opsec.eu) Received: from home.opsec.eu (home.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FB8D6AE; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:10:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@opsec.eu) Received: from pi by home.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.87 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1bpgjB-0004Sz-9G; Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:10:41 +0200 Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:10:41 +0200 From: Kurt Jaeger To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: Christian Weisgerber , Mathieu Arnold , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone Message-ID: <20160929191041.GC85563@home.opsec.eu> References: <2047d7fd-1849-6008-5be1-5fb3d1aa0661@FreeBSD.org> <3e59578a-8556-111a-f3d4-0e641a50043e@FreeBSD.org> <20160929165700.GA33046@lorvorc.mips.inka.de> <57ED667A.8080509@quip.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <57ED667A.8080509@quip.cz> X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 19:10:39 -0000 Hi! > Christian Weisgerber wrote on 09/29/2016 18:57: > > Mathieu Arnold: > > > >> If the software has not been moved to some other place, (it takes about > >> 30 seconds to click the automatic migration to github thing, and it is > >> usually done within the hour,) since march 2015, it is most likely > >> abandoned and should not be kept in the ports tree. > > > > That's a bold new policy. > > > > In the past, if the upstream was gone and the maintainer judged the > > software still useful (at their discretion, not based on a cut-off > > date), they would even fall back to providing the distfile at > > people.freebsd.org. > > I don't think it is good to remove ports just because source was not > updated for some time. There are ports useful even 10 years after last > update. Namely pnm2ppa is really old piece of code. It was removed from > ports tree because there was not maintainer. So I must become a > maintainer and now the port is alive again. > I think there should not be policy to remove ports if they have > maintainer or some user using them if only thing which should be done is > to change SRC url. I agree, old code does not mean it's useless code. We probably need a way to find out how often a pkg is downloaded from a repo to understand which ports/pkg are really used in our user base. This helps to decide if a port is really no longer in use. -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 4 years to go !