Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 18:55:37 +0200 From: Tijl Coosemans <tijl@coosemans.org> To: "Mikhail T." <mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD ports which are currently scheduled for deletion Message-ID: <20140408185537.69d5cd6e@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> In-Reply-To: <5344005C.4030503@aldan.algebra.com> References: <mailman.0.1396958400.6606.freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> <5344005C.4030503@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:57:48 -0400 Mikhail T. wrote: > 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 doesn't have to be updated continuously, but it has to be used. Keeping a port requires effort. It needs to be kept up to date with infrastructural changes (like staging) and if nobody is using the port that's just a waste of effort.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140408185537.69d5cd6e>