Mark Linimon wrote:
For those that want to see the state of all this, you can check out
the following URL:
http://portsmon.freebsd.org/portsconcordancefordeprecated.py
In particular, the "interesting" entries for you may be the unmaintained
ports (e.g. maintainer = "[email protected]".) In some of the other
cases, the maintainer had already asked for the port to be deprecated
(e.g. obsolete versions of databases/postgresql, dns/bind,
emulators/linux_base, etc.)
If you find that any of the ports on this list are ports that you use at
your site, please consider taking them over as maintainer. This would
help FreeBSD out.
fwiw, an email version of this will go out on the 21st via a cronjob.
Thanks.
mcl
I understand you want to remove a port if it does not build and there is
no one (in long time) to fix it. However, deprecating because a dist
file moved, while port may be perfectly functional, seems a bit too
much, imho. I've just glanced at the list linked above and I've noticed
a few ports I've used in (not that distant) past. So I believe there
are still users of them out there. So why would we deny them using the
ports if all it takes is publishing the port files somewhere ? And
since FreeBSD has the infrastructure and resources I see no issue in
providing parking for such distfiles, especially if we believe they are
used by minority of users. Or is there something I miss here ?
With regards,
Martin
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
