https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=206922
--- Comment #2 from John Marino <[email protected]> --- I have a much strict view of the world. You have a tool presented as "official" that hasn't had it's original maintainer in 4 years and was only kept on life support up until 9 months ago. In my world, this is a *COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE* situation. What other s/w is documented yet unmaintained in FreeBSD? There seems to be a feeling that having portmaster unmaintained is ok, and that portmaster has no bugs. I think neither is the case. In my world, there are two options: 1) officially support portmaster 2) remove it from documentation This suggestion, "let's just add a footnote that it's not maintained" is not good one, nor it is a professional one. Where is the motivation to save this particular piece of software coming from? And why the pro-portmaster people not maintaining it (assuming they have the ability?) finally, if getting it out the documentation initiates it removal out the ports collection, I could go for that. Howver, right now, it doesn't *deserve* to be in the documentation because it as fallen below acceptable maintenance level and I hope everyone realizes that. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-doc To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
