Am 12.09.2011 22:58, schrieb Julian H. Stacey: >> If the author of another package stated that maintenance ceased, that is >> no longer the case. Any why let port users fall into this pit? They > > You advocate digging the pit. The hole where the ports was.
Nonsense. It's a wanton exaggeration of someone - you - running out of objective arguments. If you'd looked at how I've removed the ports that I have removed, you know that I spent considerable amounts of time to find suitable solutions for all users (usually dependent ports). This included porting applications to DB 4.X myself so I could remove db2 and db3, working with other maintainers so we could move lzo users to lzo2, and thereabouts. Of course that is separate from the policy discussion, and my stance is clear. Even if we were to kill all deprecated ports now we'd have more than 20,000 to choose from. Keeping explosive garbage around just in case someone might want to blast his feet away with isn't maintenance, quality, or useful. We don't lose ports along that deprecation way that users would cheer about, else we'd have a lot of shouting going on already after the earlier deprecation rounds that have been run already. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
