Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:57:48 -0400 From: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD ports which are currently scheduled for deletion Message-ID: <5344005C.4030503@aldan.algebra.com> In-Reply-To: <mailman.0.1396958400.6606.freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> References: <mailman.0.1396958400.6606.freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 08.04.2014 08:00, freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org wrote:
> If people are using a port, then I would agree it should be kept
> regardless of maintainer status. But that doesn't mean keeping
> everything forever as long as it compiles.
Why not? Why not "keep everything forever as long as it compiles"? Where
is this idea coming from, that stuff must be continuously updated to be
considered usable?
> It's certainly possible that antoine@ has been a little overzealous in
> deprecating ports, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to have
> some evidence that any particular port has actually *worked* in the last
> ten or fifteen years.
There is no evidence it has NOT worked either. And the burden of proof,
that a change is necessary (or even desirable), is on whoever is
suggesting the change.
The most recent list included not only software for interfacing with old
video-cameras -- various modules for xmms, for example, are on the
chopping block too, for just another example. Why?..
-mi
P.S. Please, CC me on any follow-ups -- I'm only getting digests of
freebsd-ports@ making replying difficult.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5344005C.4030503>