From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 8 17:12:51 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98A777AA for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:12:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.rcn.com (smtp.rcn.com [69.168.97.78]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 544751963 for ; Tue, 8 Apr 2014 17:12:50 +0000 (UTC) X_CMAE_Category: , , X-CNFS-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=Cd6KFcXl c=1 sm=1 a=G/olaBUpLsCobE3dvK+8ZA==:17 a=zOckYCwfLoEA:10 a=0EuHnjpoJUEA:10 a=YNqtyO0l_hcA:10 a=LaogzpLLAAAA:8 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=3gtkwE_OH2VzEej-D8sA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=SV7veod9ZcQA:10 a=YqRfAJJkAAAA:8 a=cmIxDvwVQxEOt0Fvb8UA:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=kzj1RSdpeABMOgS7:21 a=G/olaBUpLsCobE3dvK+8ZA==:117 X-CM-Score: 0 X-Scanned-by: Cloudmark Authority Engine X-Authed-Username: YW5hdEByY24uY29t Authentication-Results: smtp01.rcn.cmh.synacor.com header.from=mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com; sender-id=neutral Authentication-Results: smtp01.rcn.cmh.synacor.com smtp.mail=mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com; spf=neutral; sender-id=neutral Authentication-Results: smtp01.rcn.cmh.synacor.com smtp.user=anat; auth=pass (PLAIN) Received-SPF: neutral (smtp01.rcn.cmh.synacor.com: 209.6.156.90 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of aldan.algebra.com) Received: from [209.6.156.90] ([209.6.156.90:58569] helo=utka.zajac) by smtp.rcn.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.5.1.37854 r(Momo-dev:3.5.1.0)) with ESMTPA id 96/46-35164-01E24435; Tue, 08 Apr 2014 13:12:49 -0400 Message-ID: <53442E10.6060907@aldan.algebra.com> Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 13:12:48 -0400 From: "Mikhail T." User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD i386; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tijl Coosemans Subject: Re: FreeBSD ports which are currently scheduled for deletion References: <5344005C.4030503@aldan.algebra.com> <20140408185537.69d5cd6e@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> In-Reply-To: <20140408185537.69d5cd6e@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2014 17:12:51 -0000 On 08.04.2014 12:55, Tijl Coosemans wrote: > 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. Tijl, there is no indication whatsoever, that ports on the chopping block are not used. The argument put forth by the proponents of the removals is thus: "The upstream authors haven't made a new release in a long time, therefor the software must be neither any good, nor see much use." I find this logic flawed -- some of my favorite books are more than 2000 years old, for example... Their authors certainly aren't making new releases, yet they continue to be maintained, built (published), and used by generations. The closest we've ever come to estimating usage is the following: "If there is any user-base to speak of, then there should be a person among them willing to maintain the port -- or pay someone to maintain it." This, too, is flawed in my opinion -- expecting a graphics-artist, a biologist, or an audiophile to also be a half-decent software engineer is a stretch; expecting them to pay for port-maintainership is also not fair, when the entire OS is free, done for fun, rather than profit. Though I agree, that unmaintained ports should be dropped when they break due to things like security bugs or compiler-upgrades, the self-inflicted wounds like infrastructure changes do not qualify. Volunteers taking it upon themselves to perform such changes, should be prepared to deal with all that's required for them. Yours, -mi