On Sat, 19 Sep 2020 14:22:51 -0400 Kurt Mosiejczuk <k...@cranky.work>:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 08:00:41PM +0200, Solène Rapenne wrote: > > > > Remove it? > > > Why remove it? Because it's python2? Do we have a python2 expiration > > policy? (I see others OS have a deadline for python2 removal, maybe > > we should do the same) > > It's python2. Did someone ask to kill all python2 ports? > It's not available from its author, only from our mirror of the distfile > on ftp.openbsd. I think we have a lot of cases like this. > It parses packets and hasn't been updated. But it works "offline" so I don't see the issue. > > > If it works and that we don't have alternative in ports I think > > we should keep it. > > If folks *use* it, I'm ok with keeping it. However, it was imported more > than 11 years ago and hasn't been updated. It's homepage advises others to > use a different project. The source file isn't available. > > Honestly, the more I investigate this, the *less* I'd like it to stay. > > > There is a python3 pcapdiff at https://github.com/isginf/pcap-diff > > I don't know if it's a fork of net/pcapdiff though. > > Someone could do a port of that. > > --Kurt > I don't really care about the port itself, but I think we need to define a clear policy about python2 removal crusade. I get that python2 is end of life. We have lot of python2 ports that are python2 only. Do we remove python2 in X months/year and projects that still use python2 will have to be deleted? Do we try to delete every port requiring python2 ? At which cost? If we agree that python2 must disappear for 6.9 release, I would understand the choice of deleting python2 ports. I am always ok to delete ports that are broken or network related and abandoned for safety reasons. But if a port works and doesn't seem to be a security risk to run I don't see strong reasons to remove it.
