Hi, thank you for the reply > > the last upstream release of whowatch dates back to 2018 > > So upstream is basically unmaintained.
While the last official release dates back to 2018, I do see some repository activity as recently as 2025. However, given the lack of releases and the absence of clear ongoing maintenance or responsiveness, it still seems reasonable to treat upstream as effectively unmaintained from a ports perspective. > > Does it make sense to patch whowatch to use utmpx/utx on FreeBSD, even > > if this results in a significant, one-time overhaul of the codebase? > > If you would do that, I suggest to get in touch with upstream and > upstream those patches, and if possible, take over upstream. I can try to engage with upstream and explore this option, but at the moment I cannot commit to taking over long-term upstream maintenance due to uncertain availability. > If a port uses interfaces that are effectively obsolete on newer releases, > then the port is deprecated if the RELEASE which still supports it > is EOL. Probably even a bit earlier... Based on this guidance, I plan to proceed with deprecating sysutils/whowatch due to its reliance on the obsolete wtmp interface. Separately from the port, I may experiment with an utmpx-based update in a personal fork to assess feasibility. This would be exploratory only and without any timeline or commitment. If such an approach later proves viable and sustainable, the situation can be revisited; otherwise, the deprecation will stand. On Wed, Jan 7, 2026 at 2:44 PM Kurt Jaeger <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi! > > > I’m currently working on updating whowatch on FreeBSD from version 1.4 to > > 1.8.6, and I’ve run into a few concerns regarding long-term viability and > > platform compatibility. > [...] > > > whowatch depends on wtmp, which appears to be deprecated or no longer > > maintained on FreeBSD 15.0-RELEASE, with utmp/utx being the preferred > > interface > > > the last upstream release of whowatch dates back to 2018 > > So upstream is basically unmaintained. > > > Does it make sense to patch whowatch to use utmpx/utx on FreeBSD, even > > if this results in a significant, one-time overhaul of the codebase? > > If you would do that, I suggest to get in touch with upstream and > upstream those patches, and if possible, take over upstream. > > > Is it more appropriate to leave the port as-is (or mark it deprecated) > > and instead focus effort on adopting or maintaining a different, more > > actively maintained tool? > > Yes, this seems more appropriate. The search for a different tool > can become quite burdensome, so it would be very helpful if you did that. > > > In general, what is the FreeBSD project’s preferred practice when a port > > depends on interfaces that are effectively obsolete on newer releases? > > If a port uses interfaces that are effectively obsolete on newer releases, > then the port is deprecated if the RELEASE which still supports it > is EOL. Probably even a bit earlier... > > -- > [email protected] +49 171 3101372 Now what ? > -- Best Regards, Jishan Alam
