Re: Recent ports removal

[Doug Barton]

On 11/15/2011 11:01, Matthew Seaman wrote:
 On 11/11/2011 22:23, Doug Barton wrote:
 By its
 nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, port
 tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no
 PORTREVISION bump happen.
 
 portmaster -L will warn you about ports marked
 DEPRECATED/FORBIDDEN/IGNORE/BROKEN if you run it against an updated
 ports tree. One area where we actually can improve here is to also put
 this information in the INDEX. I have an idea for that, just haven't
 been able to put the time into making it happen.
 
 How about something like the attached?  Rather than adding to the INDEX,
 this appends DEPRECATED, FORBIDDEN, IGNORE, BROKEN and EXPIRATION_DATE
 values to pkg-message, creating one if the port doesn't already have it.

Won't work for my use case, which is 'portmaster -L --index-only'



-- 

We could put the whole Internet into a book.
Too practical.

Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Matthew Seaman]

On 16/11/2011 08:20, Doug Barton wrote:
 On 11/15/2011 11:01, Matthew Seaman wrote:
 On 11/11/2011 22:23, Doug Barton wrote:
 By its
 nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, port
 tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no
 PORTREVISION bump happen.

 portmaster -L will warn you about ports marked
 DEPRECATED/FORBIDDEN/IGNORE/BROKEN if you run it against an updated
 ports tree. One area where we actually can improve here is to also put
 this information in the INDEX. I have an idea for that, just haven't
 been able to put the time into making it happen.

 How about something like the attached?  Rather than adding to the INDEX,
 this appends DEPRECATED, FORBIDDEN, IGNORE, BROKEN and EXPIRATION_DATE
 values to pkg-message, creating one if the port doesn't already have it.
 
 Won't work for my use case, which is 'portmaster -L --index-only'

Orthogonal to your use case: adding this sort of stuff to the INDEX is a
good idea too.  Not everyone uses portmaster though.  Also changing the
format of the INDEX has ramifications with various 3rd party software
that uses it, so it's going to be some effort to get it all sorted and
debugged.  (BTW.  Very happy to code up any proposed experimental INDEX
formats in my FreeBSD::Portindex modules or receive patches.)

The change I propose here is fairly minimal, and it should ensure that
any user of ports or packages sees notification through mechanisms that
already exist.  Since they will see this at the point they install a
deprecated port -- coupling that with bumping PORTREVISION at the point
the port is deprecated should bring such changes to the attention of
users in time for them to raise any objections / provide fixes etc.

In fact, as I think about it this morning, another idea is this sort of
mechanism could be used to notify users of unmaintained ports and ask
for volunteers to maintain them.

Cheers,

Matthew

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.   7 Priory Courtyard
  Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk   Kent, CT11 9PW



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Recent ports removal

[Matthew Seaman]

On 11/11/2011 22:23, Doug Barton wrote:
 By its
  nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, port
  tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no
  PORTREVISION bump happen.

 portmaster -L will warn you about ports marked
 DEPRECATED/FORBIDDEN/IGNORE/BROKEN if you run it against an updated
 ports tree. One area where we actually can improve here is to also put
 this information in the INDEX. I have an idea for that, just haven't
 been able to put the time into making it happen.

How about something like the attached?  Rather than adding to the INDEX,
this appends DEPRECATED, FORBIDDEN, IGNORE, BROKEN and EXPIRATION_DATE
values to pkg-message, creating one if the port doesn't already have it.

The duplication of echoing messages to STDOUT as well as the pkg-message
file is not ideal, but displaying pkg-message at install time is not
automatic when installing from ports.   It might be an idea to have a
standard port-install target to display ${PKGMESSAGE} if the file exists.

Cheers,

Matthew

-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.   7 Priory Courtyard
  Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk   Kent, CT11 9PW
Index: Makefile
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/ports/ports-mgmt/p5-FreeBSD-Portindex/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.20
diff -u -u -r1.20 Makefile
--- Makefile29 Aug 2011 04:43:56 -  1.20
+++ Makefile26 Oct 2011 08:14:43 -
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
 # $FreeBSD: ports/ports-mgmt/p5-FreeBSD-Portindex/Makefile,v 1.20 2011/08/29 
04:43:56 dougb Exp $
 
 PORTNAME=  FreeBSD-Portindex
-PORTVERSION=   2.4
+PORTVERSION=   2.6
 CATEGORIES=ports-mgmt perl5
 MASTER_SITES=  http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/portindex/
 PKGNAMEPREFIX= p5-
@@ -15,9 +15,20 @@
 
 LICENSE=   BSD
 
+# GraphViz not required for portindex to run or generate GraphViz
+# format output: this is only needed to render the output on the same
+# machine.
+OPTIONS=   GRAPHVIZ Add GraphViz run-time dependency off
+
 BUILD_DEPENDS= 
${SITE_PERL}/${PERL_ARCH}/BerkeleyDB.pm:${PORTSDIR}/databases/p5-BerkeleyDB
 RUN_DEPENDS:=  ${BUILD_DEPENDS}
 
+.include bsd.port.options.mk
+
+.if defined(WITH_GRAPHVIZ)  !defined(WITHOUT_GRAPHVIZ)
+RUN_DEPENDS+=  dot:${PORTSDIR}/graphics/graphviz
+.endif
+
 USE_XZ=yes
 PERL_CONFIGURE=yes
 
Index: distinfo
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/ports/ports-mgmt/p5-FreeBSD-Portindex/distinfo,v
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -u -u -r1.15 distinfo
--- distinfo29 Aug 2011 04:43:56 -  1.15
+++ distinfo26 Oct 2011 08:14:43 -
@@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
-SHA256 (FreeBSD-Portindex-2.4.tar.xz) = 
78f461e35dcadb9fb79665c698825fd54e081030858cf023bedfeb47b73891d0
-SIZE (FreeBSD-Portindex-2.4.tar.xz) = 50724
+SHA256 (FreeBSD-Portindex-2.6.tar.xz) = 
909ea1b4ff67ea08617a54452b6ed9e999787d6ff3458cb59fb6aa81ecc67c13
+SIZE (FreeBSD-Portindex-2.6.tar.xz) = 51828
Index: pkg-plist
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/ports/ports-mgmt/p5-FreeBSD-Portindex/pkg-plist,v
retrieving revision 1.5
diff -u -u -r1.5 pkg-plist
--- pkg-plist   14 Mar 2011 16:05:35 -  1.5
+++ pkg-plist   26 Oct 2011 08:14:43 -
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
 @exec [ ! -f %B/portindex.cfg ]  cp -p %B/%f %B/portindex.cfg || true
 %%SITE_PERL%%/FreeBSD/Portindex/Config.pm
 %%SITE_PERL%%/FreeBSD/Portindex/Category.pm
+%%SITE_PERL%%/FreeBSD/Portindex/GraphViz.pm
 %%SITE_PERL%%/FreeBSD/Portindex/Port.pm
 %%SITE_PERL%%/FreeBSD/Portindex/Tree.pm
 %%SITE_PERL%%/FreeBSD/Portindex/TreeObject.pm


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Recent ports removal

[Matthew Seaman]

On 15/11/2011 19:01, Matthew Seaman wrote:
 On 11/11/2011 22:23, Doug Barton wrote:
 By its
 nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, port
 tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no
 PORTREVISION bump happen.
 
 portmaster -L will warn you about ports marked
 DEPRECATED/FORBIDDEN/IGNORE/BROKEN if you run it against an updated
 ports tree. One area where we actually can improve here is to also put
 this information in the INDEX. I have an idea for that, just haven't
 been able to put the time into making it happen.
 
 How about something like the attached? 

Ooops.  Wrong diff.  Like this:




-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.   7 Priory Courtyard
  Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk   Kent, CT11 9PW
Index: bsd.port.mk
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk,v
retrieving revision 1.699
diff -u -u -r1.699 bsd.port.mk
--- bsd.port.mk 9 Nov 2011 08:53:12 -   1.699
+++ bsd.port.mk 15 Nov 2011 18:59:49 -
@@ -4293,8 +4293,9 @@
 _BUILD_SEQ=build-message pre-build pre-build-script do-build \
post-build post-build-script
 _INSTALL_DEP=  build
-_INSTALL_SEQ=  install-message check-install-conflicts run-depends lib-depends 
apply-slist pre-install \
-   pre-install-script generate-plist 
check-already-installed
+_INSTALL_SEQ=  install-message check-install-conflicts run-depends lib-depends 
\
+   apply-slist deprecate-and-expire pre-install 
pre-install-script \
+   generate-plist check-already-installed 
 _INSTALL_SUSEQ= check-umask install-mtree pre-su-install \
pre-su-install-script create-users-groups 
do-install \
install-desktop-entries install-license 
install-rc-script \
@@ -5615,6 +5616,34 @@
 .endif
 .endif
 
+.if !target(deprecate-and-expire)
+deprecate-and-expire:
+.if defined(DEPRECATED) || defined(FORBIDDEN) || defined(BROKEN) || \
+   defined(IGNORE) || defined(EXPIRATION_DATE)
+   @if [ -f ${_PKGMESSAGE_SAVE} -a ! -f ${PKGMESSAGE} ] ; then \
+${CP} ${_PKGMESSAGE_SAVE} ${PKGMESSAGE} ; \
+   fi
+.for i in DEPRECATED FORBIDDEN BROKEN
+.if defined(${i})
+   @${ECHO_MSG} ===  This port is ${i}: ${${i}}
+   @${ECHO_CMD} ===  This port is ${i}: ${${i}}  ${PKGMESSAGE}
+.endif
+.endfor
+.if defined(IGNORE)
+   @${ECHO_MSG} ===  This port should have been IGNORED: ${IGNORE}
+   @${ECHO_CMD} ===  This port should have been IGNORED: ${IGNORE}  \
+   ${PKGMESSAGE}
+.endif
+.if defined(EXPIRATION_DATE)
+   @${ECHO_MSG} ===  EXPIRATION DATE is set to: ${EXPIRATION_DATE}
+   @${ECHO_CMD} ===  EXPIRATION DATE is set to: ${EXPIRATION_DATE}  \
+   ${PKGMESSAGE}
+.endif
+_PKGMESSAGE_SAVE :=${PKGMESSAGE}
+PKGMESSAGE = ${WRKDIR}/${_PKGMESSAGE_SAVE:T}
+.endif
+.endif
+
 # Generate packing list.  Also tests to make sure all required package
 # files exist.
 


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Recent ports removal

[Chris Rees]

On 15 November 2011 19:19, Matthew Seaman
m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk wrote:
 On 15/11/2011 19:01, Matthew Seaman wrote:
 On 11/11/2011 22:23, Doug Barton wrote:
 By its
 nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, port
 tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no
 PORTREVISION bump happen.

 portmaster -L will warn you about ports marked
 DEPRECATED/FORBIDDEN/IGNORE/BROKEN if you run it against an updated
 ports tree. One area where we actually can improve here is to also put
 this information in the INDEX. I have an idea for that, just haven't
 been able to put the time into making it happen.

 How about something like the attached?

 Ooops.  Wrong diff.  Like this:

Why have you included IGNOREd?

Just curious

Chris
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Matthew Seaman]

On 15/11/2011 19:25, Chris Rees wrote:
 On 15 November 2011 19:19, Matthew Seaman
 m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk wrote:
 On 15/11/2011 19:01, Matthew Seaman wrote:
 On 11/11/2011 22:23, Doug Barton wrote:
 By its
 nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, port
 tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no
 PORTREVISION bump happen.

 portmaster -L will warn you about ports marked
 DEPRECATED/FORBIDDEN/IGNORE/BROKEN if you run it against an updated
 ports tree. One area where we actually can improve here is to also put
 this information in the INDEX. I have an idea for that, just haven't
 been able to put the time into making it happen.

 How about something like the attached?

 Ooops.  Wrong diff.  Like this:
 
 Why have you included IGNOREd?
 
 Just curious

A pedantic desire to cover all possibilities.   It probably doesn't need
to be there, but my (admittedly cursory) reading of the code suggests
that by defining NO_IGNORE it could still be possible to build a pkg.

Cheers,

Matthew


-- 
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil.   7 Priory Courtyard
  Flat 3
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate
JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk   Kent, CT11 9PW



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Recent ports removal

[Matthias Andree]

Am 10.11.2011 12:06, schrieb Dmitry Marakasov:

 Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken, it's
 useable, you may not remove it, period. 

It appears to me that yours - although shared with mi@ - is a minority
vote, and on top of that, also one with little weight because -- and
this is my personal perception that is likely to differ -- it is from
one of the people who nag about the policy of fact, and rather talk,
than grab a port and fix it so it can stay.

Where work in the previous paragraph can be substituted with providing
other resources, like recruiting new volunteers, bribing current
contributors, or thereabout.

Nagging from your seat isn't helpful.


Now, let's get constructive, here are my ideas for the current round of
port removal nagging:

1. I'd like to officially propose to remove the
MAINTAINER=po...@freebsd.org tag from unmaintained ports and have the
ports/Mk/bsd.*.mk stuff be explicit about the port being unmaintained,
so as to pull this rug from underneath the naggers so they can no longer
delude anyone to believe a port were maintained by ports@.


2. We could see to exposing deprecations or somethings more clearly.
portmaster -L is a contributor here, but I think it needs to move closer
to the baseline source.  Marking such mars in INDEX (dougb@ mentioned
that) sounds useful to me, if it's viable.

Else we can consider bumping PORTREVISION when marking a port FORBIDDEN
or DEPRECATED so that this change gets exposed.


3. Perhaps we should also consider not to build packages for ports that
have the slightest mar (DEPRECATED, unmaintained, whatever) -- but that
requires more discussion and thought.


You won't leave footprints (read: make any difference to existing
practice) unless and until you walk (read: work).
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Matthias Andree]

If it were to be consensus we wouldn't be moving anywhere as a
project, so that certainly won't count.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Peter Jeremy]

On 2011-Nov-11 12:40:12 -0800, Stanislav Sedov s...@deglitch.com wrote:
Because portmgr@ is using it?  There're numerous cases when unmaintained, 
buggy,
vulnerable and plainly dangerous stuff stays in tree because someone in portmgr
gang likes it when other applications not used by them being removed without
prior discussion notice.  Because your opinion doesn't matter.  Neither is 
mine.

I am getting heartily tired of your continuous tirade against the
portmgr@ community.  Please provide evidence to backup your
accusations or retract them.

As for the removal of obsolete ports - it has been made perfectly
clear on many occasions that a MAINTAINER of ports@ means that port
is _not_ maintained.  If it's a port you use, feel free to take over
maintainership.  Otherwise that port is subject to removal if any
problems with it crop up.

-- 
Peter Jeremy


pgpsPMP9x6Stn.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Recent ports removal

[Doug Barton]

On 11/13/2011 12:25, Mikhail T. wrote:
 You've gone from small minority of other interested parties to no one
 has made a peep in a single e-mail! If this is the quality of the rest
 of your reasoning, than you should not be surprised, that it has not
 really resonated despite the endless repetition...

You turned a comparison of the discussion of the concept of ports
removal generally to the removal of individual ports and turned it into
an ad hominem attack on the quality of *my* reasoning. This is an
excellent example of why I, for one, don't bother replying substantively
to your messages anymore.


Doug

-- 

We could put the whole Internet into a book.
Too practical.

Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Chris Rees]

On 13 Nov 2011 21:20, Doug Barton do...@freebsd.org wrote:

 On 11/13/2011 12:25, Mikhail T. wrote:
  You've gone from small minority of other interested parties to no one
  has made a peep in a single e-mail! If this is the quality of the rest
  of your reasoning, than you should not be surprised, that it has not
  really resonated despite the endless repetition...

 You turned a comparison of the discussion of the concept of ports
 removal generally to the removal of individual ports and turned it into
 an ad hominem attack on the quality of *my* reasoning. This is an
 excellent example of why I, for one, don't bother replying substantively
 to your messages anymore.


 Doug

Oh my it's two months ago.

Is it?

Can we move on? Ports are deprecated and removed. Insecure/unmaintained
ports are harmful.

If you care, step up to maintain them. Seriously. Or stop complaining.

Chris

PS only replying to Doug because it's the latest email, not because I think
he disagrees with me.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Mikhail T.]

On 13.11.2011 16:20, Doug Barton wrote:

You turned a comparison of the discussion of the concept of ports
removal generally to the removal of individual ports and turned it into
an ad hominem attack on the quality of*my*  reasoning.


Huh?


This is an excellent example of why I, for one, don't bother replying 
substantively
to your messages anymore.


And yet, you are going to have to... Because you are not doing your 
removals as an individual committer (if you were, your desire to remove 
a port could've been stopped by *my* desire to keep it). And as long as 
you imply having some sort of governing authority behind you (such as a 
portmgr hat -- permanent or temporary), you need to justify your actions 
to keep the consent of the governed.


But I'm not asking you to reply to the uncivil, sarcastic, and otherwise 
flawed *me*. My proposal was for you and the rest of the removers to 
articulate your reasoning on a web-page. That would carry your message 
(calmly thought-through and edited) to all users and colleagues alike, 
including those too polite to question your actions publicly. Please, 
oblige.


On 13.11.2011 16:31, Chris Rees wrote:

Oh my it's two months ago.


Yes. And my recollection from back then is that portmgr was reviewing 
the issue (in the quiet of Olympus away from the noise of all the silly 
mortals) and was going to render their decision (eloquently and 
convincingly to all)... That has not happened, but the removals continue 
to this day...


Can we move on? Ports are deprecated and removed. 
Insecure/unmaintained ports are harmful.


No, we can not move on. It should, by now, be obvious to all, that there 
is no consensus on when a port should be removed. And yet, a fraction of 
the committers take it upon themselves to remove ports based on their 
own credentials -- much to the dissatisfaction of the opposing fraction. 
I fail to see, why or how the opinion of crees@ and dougb@ outweighs 
that of stas@ and mi@. To be sure, both factions have other members, but 
nobody conducted a vote -- and we don't even know, what such a vote 
would mean anyway.


Yours,

   -mi

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Dmitry Marakasov]

* Martin Wilke (m...@freebsd.org) wrote:

  They have been deprecated for a while and noone said anything about those, 
  that
  is the purpose of the DEPRECATED status. The not used anymore mean not 
  used in
  Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken, it's
  useable, you may not remove it, period.
 
  the portstree (ie no more depended on).
  Most of the portstree is leaf ports, now what?
 
  If someone really needs it, he can:
  What we need is to not have to do extra work and to not have extra noise
  on the maillist because someone does unneeded things. I really don't
  want to call that vandalism.
 
 You can't only put in u have also to put out.

Why don't we take out Gnome and KDE then? I don't use it.

-- 
Dmitry Marakasov   .   55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56  9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D
amd...@amdmi3.ru  ..:  jabber: amd...@jabber.ruhttp://www.amdmi3.ru
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[David Marec]

Le 11.11.2011 11:07, Dmitry Marakasov a écrit :


Why don't we take out Gnome and KDE then? I don't use it.


Cause,  there is  still guys that are ready to maintain them, and, 
futhermore, some stuff in the ports tree that depend on them ?



--
David Marec, mailto:david.ma...@davenulle.org
http://user.lamaiziere.net/david/Site
http://www.diablotins.org/
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Jerry]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:07:08 +0400
Dmitry Marakasov articulated:

 * Martin Wilke (m...@freebsd.org) wrote:
 
   They have been deprecated for a while and noone said anything
   about those, that is the purpose of the DEPRECATED status. The
   not used anymore mean not used in
   Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken,
   it's useable, you may not remove it, period.
  
   the portstree (ie no more depended on).
   Most of the portstree is leaf ports, now what?
  
   If someone really needs it, he can:
   What we need is to not have to do extra work and to not have
   extra noise on the maillist because someone does unneeded things.
   I really don't want to call that vandalism.
  
  You can't only put in u have also to put out.
 
 Why don't we take out Gnome and KDE then? I don't use it.

That reality might come sooner than you think but for an entirely
different reason.

http://www.technograte.com/2011/05/18/gnome-to-drop-support-for-bsd-solaris-unix/

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/05/gnome-to-drop-support-for-bsd-solaris-unix/

-- 
Jerry ♔
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Chris Rees]

On 11 November 2011 13:09, Jerry je...@seibercom.net wrote:
 On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:07:08 +0400
 Dmitry Marakasov articulated:

 * Martin Wilke (m...@freebsd.org) wrote:

   They have been deprecated for a while and noone said anything
   about those, that is the purpose of the DEPRECATED status. The
   not used anymore mean not used in
   Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken,
   it's useable, you may not remove it, period.
  
   the portstree (ie no more depended on).
   Most of the portstree is leaf ports, now what?
  
   If someone really needs it, he can:
   What we need is to not have to do extra work and to not have
   extra noise on the maillist because someone does unneeded things.
   I really don't want to call that vandalism.
  
  You can't only put in u have also to put out.

 Why don't we take out Gnome and KDE then? I don't use it.

 That reality might come sooner than you think but for an entirely
 different reason.

 http://www.technograte.com/2011/05/18/gnome-to-drop-support-for-bsd-solaris-unix/

 http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/05/gnome-to-drop-support-for-bsd-solaris-unix/


Hm.

The real problem of course is that although addport is written in
Perl, rmport is written in sh; thus making it much more convenient to
use on a machine without Perl.

Possible solutions:

- Reimport Perl to base
- Rewrite addport to sh (though that would undo a lot of recent work :/)
- Rewrite rmport in perl?

This way we could make a better equilibrium -- a committer looking to
fiddle a category Makefile would no longer be forced to choose between
installing Perl and removing a port, which would remove the incentive
to remove rather than add.

Chris
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Stanislav Sedov]

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:07:08 +0400
Dmitry Marakasov amd...@amdmi3.ru mentioned:

 * Martin Wilke (m...@freebsd.org) wrote:
 
   They have been deprecated for a while and noone said anything about 
   those, that
   is the purpose of the DEPRECATED status. The not used anymore mean not 
   used in
   Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken, it's
   useable, you may not remove it, period.
  
   the portstree (ie no more depended on).
   Most of the portstree is leaf ports, now what?
  
   If someone really needs it, he can:
   What we need is to not have to do extra work and to not have extra noise
   on the maillist because someone does unneeded things. I really don't
   want to call that vandalism.
  
  You can't only put in u have also to put out.
 
 Why don't we take out Gnome and KDE then? I don't use it.
 

Because portmgr@ is using it?  There're numerous cases when unmaintained, buggy,
vulnerable and plainly dangerous stuff stays in tree because someone in portmgr
gang likes it when other applications not used by them being removed without
prior discussion notice.  Because your opinion doesn't matter.  Neither is mine.
Like in old good USSR times...

-- 
Stanislav Sedov
ST4096-RIPE

()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail 
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Mark Linimon]

 Why don't we take out Gnome and KDE then? I don't use it.

It's this kind of comment that is souring me on the FreeBSD community.

Can't we just disagree politely anymore?

mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Mark Linimon]

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:40:12PM -0800, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
 Because portmgr@ is using it?  There're numerous cases when unmaintained, 
 buggy,
 vulnerable and plainly dangerous stuff stays in tree because someone in 
 portmgr
 gang likes it when other applications not used by them being removed without
 prior discussion notice.

There are always periodic emails, both to individual maintainers and
ports@, that summarize which ports are deprecated, expiring, and forbidden.
That's served as the best springboard for discussion I know how to do in an
automated fashion, for several years.  In many rounds of those emails I get
responses which result in ports being kept from the scrapheap.

I'm not aware of vulnerable things that stay in (other than gnats3, which
is still part of our infrastructure), and php52, which apparently is so
widely used that we must continue to support it despite our best effrots
to clean up the tree.  Which other ones are there?

From your email I'm sure you don't believe me, but we are attempting to
be objective about removing stale, broken, and dangerous code.  It's an
imperfect art and relies on judgement calls.

Surely we can come up with a better alternative than just leave ports
in forever.  I don't think this serves our users well.

mcl
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Doug Barton]

On 11/10/2011 03:06, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
 * Baptiste Daroussin (b...@freebsd.org) wrote:

 They have been deprecated for a while and noone said anything about those, 
 that
 is the purpose of the DEPRECATED status. The not used anymore mean not 
 used in
 
 Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken, it's
 useable, you may not remove it, period. 

Yes, we realize that you, and a small minority of other interested
parties, have this belief in spite of endless repetition of the
reasoning, by the people who do the actual work to keep the ports tree
functional, as to why your desire to keep every port is not a workable
solution.

I personally have handled the removal of hundreds of broken and
vulnerable ports over the last several months. A very small percentage
(2% perhaps?) were ports that people cared enough to fix, and the fact
that someone fixed them is a great outcome. OTOH, in several cases after
contacting the port's maintainer I was told that yes indeed, they would
like the port removed, but were unsure of how to go about it.

The removed ports are in the CVS attic where any interested party can
retrieve and fix them. However the fact that no one has made a peep
about them is a pretty strong indication that they were simply dead
weight that we were carrying for no good reason.


Doug

-- 

We could put the whole Internet into a book.
Too practical.

Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Xin LI]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

(I just picked one message to do a reply-all, not specific to any one
single message but all of them).

Technically speaking the current approach's problem is that the user
might have no chance of seeing it before the port is removed.  By its
nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, port
tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no
PORTREVISION bump happen.  For users who install from packages, there
is no deprecation message at all, and it's pretty likely that these
user when updating to a new version suddenly find the software missing.

I think if we want to deprecate ports in a constant manner, we need to
do a better job of letting the user (or let's say potential
contributor) know it.  My own server in China have went offline for a
few months before my friend rebuild and install one for me, and I
suddenly noticed that some of previous ports maintained by someone
else have been marked as DEPRECATED because upstream gone.

Think about this: FreeBSD is not just a product, it's also a project
and a community.  It's never an overkill to do more things to keep
developers, contributors and potential contributors happy and continue
to contribute.  Making them happy is not do whatever they want us to
do but to think more about what they would think, and how we can
improve.

Cheers,
- -- 
Xin LI delp...@delphij.nethttps://www.delphij.net/
FreeBSD - The Power to Serve!   Live free or die
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD)

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJOvZ5uAAoJEATO+BI/yjfBkxYIAKwfR3KRGr4l0AY1fV8Os0MR
+0GTUlOnTtaIybk81NcmLhyonSr1GsKAbqyAz5D9hsVFWdNOIeP6G/AnYRIak9Gs
ffrFCIN6WjiFmYORQVSTOl3noQmAC4E066vl2PceOUL8sHyHI6O85SuraY0noaVQ
p3AV58sQqIuUTpV4f3gPG1nFiDrJT1ZxtLANWjveSNNKDrdcalgjPtPbv1DUYPgp
10me7cVkqp5rrCs2fVUP92037x7XljAZjDi8AaEPf/LtV7Rb+IgC9bE1erk8u8w5
RHoWp2er6szTi70v3CUH7YI7WV31wpphBCY75w/kcvJ4FW1OmUOMjXksVfvLZo8=
=xhBR
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Doug Barton]

On 11/11/2011 14:15, Xin LI wrote:
 (I just picked one message to do a reply-all, not specific to any one
 single message but all of them).
 
 Technically speaking the current approach's problem is that the user
 might have no chance of seeing it before the port is removed. 

That's going to be true no matter what approach we use, or what time
period we choose. There are plenty of boxes that just sit there happily
doing their work without being updated. If that's the case, then the
fact that a port is deprecated or removed isn't really a problem for
them. Vulnerable ports are a different issue, but we have portaudit for
that.

 By its
 nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, port
 tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no
 PORTREVISION bump happen. 

portmaster -L will warn you about ports marked
DEPRECATED/FORBIDDEN/IGNORE/BROKEN if you run it against an updated
ports tree. One area where we actually can improve here is to also put
this information in the INDEX. I have an idea for that, just haven't
been able to put the time into making it happen.

 For users who install from packages, there
 is no deprecation message at all, and it's pretty likely that these
 user when updating to a new version suddenly find the software missing.

I would think that the lack of a package would be a pretty clear message
that there is an issue that needs attention, wouldn't you? :) Perhaps we
need to rethink the policy on whether packages should be created for
deprecated ports.

 I think if we want to deprecate ports in a constant manner, we need to
 do a better job of letting the user (or let's say potential
 contributor) know it. 

I think you're right that we can do more, so what is your proposal?


Doug

-- 

We could put the whole Internet into a book.
Too practical.

Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Dmitry Marakasov]

* Baptiste Daroussin (b...@freebsd.org) wrote:

  I noticed the following in the commit log:
  %
  %  Modified files:
  %.MOVED 
  %develMakefile 
  %graphics Makefile 
  %  Removed files:
  %devel/soup   Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist 
  %devel/soup/files patch-Makefile.in patch-configure 
  % patch-docs::reference::Makefile.in 
  % patch-soup-0.7.11-gcc41 
  % patch-src_libsoup_soup-message.c 
  % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-soap-memory.c 
  % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-soap-parse.c 
  % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-typecodes.c 
  %graphics/clutter-qt  Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist 
  %graphics/librsvg Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist 
  %graphics/librsvg/files patch-Makefile.in patch-configure 
  %   patch-librsvg-config.in patch-rsvg-ft.c 
  %   patch-test-ft-gtk.c patch-test-ft.c 
  %graphics/p5-clutter  Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist 
  %  Log:
  %  2011-11-06 devel/soup: Unmaintain, use devel/libsoup
  %  2011-11-06 graphics/clutter-qt: upstream distfile and doesn't build, and 
  %doesn't seem to be developed anymore
  %  2011-11-06 graphics/p5-clutter: upstream distfile disappeard, and 
  doesn't seem to be developed anymore
  %  2011-11-06 graphics/librsvg: unmaintained and not used anymore
  
  I just cannot get the commit message. librsvg -- not used by whom?  
  Personally,
  I used it in one of my older projects (~ 10 years old) which I don't plan
  to rework to use rsvg2/gtk2 because it doesn't make sense for it.  So how
  do I use my project now on FreeBSD?
  
  It's also a lie that it's not maintained, it's maintained by ports@ mailing
  list and the community.  So please, restore it.
  
  The same also probably goes for other ports, but I don't have enough details
  to comment.
  
  Thanks!
  
 
 They have been deprecated for a while and noone said anything about those, 
 that
 is the purpose of the DEPRECATED status. The not used anymore mean not used 
 in

Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken, it's
useable, you may not remove it, period. 

 the portstree (ie no more depended on).

Most of the portstree is leaf ports, now what?

 If someone really needs it, he can:

What we need is to not have to do extra work and to not have extra noise
on the maillist because someone does unneeded things. I really don't
want to call that vandalism.

-- 
Dmitry Marakasov   .   55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56  9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D
amd...@amdmi3.ru  ..:  jabber: amd...@jabber.ruhttp://www.amdmi3.ru
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Martin Wilke]

On 11/10/2011 11:06, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:

* Baptiste Daroussin (b...@freebsd.org) wrote:


I noticed the following in the commit log:
%
%  Modified files:
%.MOVED
%develMakefile
%graphics Makefile
%  Removed files:
%devel/soup   Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist
%devel/soup/files patch-Makefile.in patch-configure
% patch-docs::reference::Makefile.in
% patch-soup-0.7.11-gcc41
% patch-src_libsoup_soup-message.c
% patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-soap-memory.c
% patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-soap-parse.c
% patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-typecodes.c
%graphics/clutter-qt  Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist
%graphics/librsvg Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist
%graphics/librsvg/files patch-Makefile.in patch-configure
%   patch-librsvg-config.in patch-rsvg-ft.c
%   patch-test-ft-gtk.c patch-test-ft.c
%graphics/p5-clutter  Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist
%  Log:
%  2011-11-06 devel/soup: Unmaintain, use devel/libsoup
%  2011-11-06 graphics/clutter-qt: upstream distfile and doesn't build, and 
%doesn't seem to be developed anymore
%  2011-11-06 graphics/p5-clutter: upstream distfile disappeard, and doesn't 
seem to be developed anymore
%  2011-11-06 graphics/librsvg: unmaintained and not used anymore

I just cannot get the commit message. librsvg -- not used by whom?  Personally,
I used it in one of my older projects (~ 10 years old) which I don't plan
to rework to use rsvg2/gtk2 because it doesn't make sense for it.  So how
do I use my project now on FreeBSD?

It's also a lie that it's not maintained, it's maintained by ports@ mailing
list and the community.  So please, restore it.

The same also probably goes for other ports, but I don't have enough details
to comment.

Thanks!


They have been deprecated for a while and noone said anything about those, that
is the purpose of the DEPRECATED status. The not used anymore mean not used in

Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken, it's
useable, you may not remove it, period.


the portstree (ie no more depended on).

Most of the portstree is leaf ports, now what?


If someone really needs it, he can:

What we need is to not have to do extra work and to not have extra noise
on the maillist because someone does unneeded things. I really don't
want to call that vandalism.


You can't only put in u have also to put out.

--
+-oOO--(_)--OOo-+
With best Regards,
Martin Wilke (miwi_(at)_FreeBSD.org)

Mess with the Best, Die like the Rest

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Recent ports removal

[Stanislav Sedov]

Hi!

I noticed the following in the commit log:
%
%  Modified files:
%.MOVED 
%develMakefile 
%graphics Makefile 
%  Removed files:
%devel/soup   Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist 
%devel/soup/files patch-Makefile.in patch-configure 
% patch-docs::reference::Makefile.in 
% patch-soup-0.7.11-gcc41 
% patch-src_libsoup_soup-message.c 
% patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-soap-memory.c 
% patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-soap-parse.c 
% patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-typecodes.c 
%graphics/clutter-qt  Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist 
%graphics/librsvg Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist 
%graphics/librsvg/files patch-Makefile.in patch-configure 
%   patch-librsvg-config.in patch-rsvg-ft.c 
%   patch-test-ft-gtk.c patch-test-ft.c 
%graphics/p5-clutter  Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist 
%  Log:
%  2011-11-06 devel/soup: Unmaintain, use devel/libsoup
%  2011-11-06 graphics/clutter-qt: upstream distfile and doesn't build, and 
%doesn't seem to be developed anymore
%  2011-11-06 graphics/p5-clutter: upstream distfile disappeard, and doesn't 
seem to be developed anymore
%  2011-11-06 graphics/librsvg: unmaintained and not used anymore

I just cannot get the commit message. librsvg -- not used by whom?  Personally,
I used it in one of my older projects (~ 10 years old) which I don't plan
to rework to use rsvg2/gtk2 because it doesn't make sense for it.  So how
do I use my project now on FreeBSD?

It's also a lie that it's not maintained, it's maintained by ports@ mailing
list and the community.  So please, restore it.

The same also probably goes for other ports, but I don't have enough details
to comment.

Thanks!

-- 
Stanislav Sedov
ST4096-RIPE

()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail 
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: Recent ports removal

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 12:43:25PM -0800, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
 Hi!
 
 I noticed the following in the commit log:
 %
 %  Modified files:
 %.MOVED 
 %develMakefile 
 %graphics Makefile 
 %  Removed files:
 %devel/soup   Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist 
 %devel/soup/files patch-Makefile.in patch-configure 
 % patch-docs::reference::Makefile.in 
 % patch-soup-0.7.11-gcc41 
 % patch-src_libsoup_soup-message.c 
 % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-soap-memory.c 
 % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-soap-parse.c 
 % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-typecodes.c 
 %graphics/clutter-qt  Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist 
 %graphics/librsvg Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist 
 %graphics/librsvg/files patch-Makefile.in patch-configure 
 %   patch-librsvg-config.in patch-rsvg-ft.c 
 %   patch-test-ft-gtk.c patch-test-ft.c 
 %graphics/p5-clutter  Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist 
 %  Log:
 %  2011-11-06 devel/soup: Unmaintain, use devel/libsoup
 %  2011-11-06 graphics/clutter-qt: upstream distfile and doesn't build, and 
 %doesn't seem to be developed anymore
 %  2011-11-06 graphics/p5-clutter: upstream distfile disappeard, and doesn't 
 seem to be developed anymore
 %  2011-11-06 graphics/librsvg: unmaintained and not used anymore
 
 I just cannot get the commit message. librsvg -- not used by whom?  
 Personally,
 I used it in one of my older projects (~ 10 years old) which I don't plan
 to rework to use rsvg2/gtk2 because it doesn't make sense for it.  So how
 do I use my project now on FreeBSD?
 
 It's also a lie that it's not maintained, it's maintained by ports@ mailing
 list and the community.  So please, restore it.
 
 The same also probably goes for other ports, but I don't have enough details
 to comment.
 
 Thanks!
 

They have been deprecated for a while and noone said anything about those, that
is the purpose of the DEPRECATED status. The not used anymore mean not used in
the portstree (ie no more depended on).

If someone really needs it, he can: 
1- install it by hand
2- maintain the port
3- just come up when someone deprecate it saying please undeprecate I really
need it.
4- they should be a lot more options.

I has been deprecated and removed just because upstream don't maintain it, no
one looks at the maybe security problem if any etc.

Of course it could have been a mistake to remove this one in particular, in that
case sorry about that.

Concerning the fact that it is maintained by ports@, if it would really be the
case why it is still in the tree while it depends on libxml1 for which in about
5s I find a security issue:
http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2011-1944 which hasn't been
reported and hasn't been fixed at all, which means librsvg1 is also vulnerable. 

the problem is that those ports abandonned upstream are not really maintain
anymore, and can lead to a real security problem.


note that I don't know yet how the libxml1 vulnerability can have an impact on
librsvg, this is just a 5s example.

regards,
Bapt


pgp7brhe93V32.pgp
Description: PGP signature

recent ports removal

[Ruslan Mahmatkhanov]

Hi, Doug.

You just removed www/pyblosxom. But we have a pr, that update it to 
latest (not-vulnerable) version: http://bugs.freebsd.org/160682.


Please revert.

--
Regards,
Ruslan

Tinderboxing kills... the drives.
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: recent ports removal

[Doug Barton]

On 09/30/2011 02:54, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
 Doug Barton wrote on 30.09.2011 13:50:
 On 09/30/2011 02:40, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
 Hi, Doug.

 You just removed www/pyblosxom. But we have a pr, that update it to
 latest (not-vulnerable) version: http://bugs.freebsd.org/160682.

 Julien took that PR, when he's ready to do the update he can pull the
 files out of the Attic.


 Doug
 
 Ok, but as far i recall, there in ports@ was sounded a policy like we
 do not remove the ports with open pr's on them.

I think you misunderstand what remove means in this context. :)  Or
perhaps you've never worked with a version control system ... It's
honestly hard for me to understand why it's hard for people to
understand this concept. When Julien is ready to do his work all he has
to do is type 'cvs co -D 2011-09-29 ports/www/pyblosxom
ports/www/Makefile' and then do his thing. Because a port has been
removed today is completely irrelevant to the possibility that it will
come back in a non-vulnerable form tomorrow.

Meanwhile, at one point in the past I did do a PR check for most if not
all of the ports that I removed, and I have committed several updates
from maintainers of ports that I had marked FORBIDDEN/DEPRECATED. In
this case because Julien took that PR I assume that he has some sort of
special knowledge/interest in the port, and is in the best position to
deal with it, so I am deferring to his judgement. In the meantime
removing it on schedule is the safest course of action.


hth,

Doug

-- 

Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go

Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org

Re: recent ports removal

[Doug Barton]

On 09/30/2011 11:05, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
 Doug Barton wrote on 30.09.2011 22:04:
 On 09/30/2011 02:54, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
 Doug Barton wrote on 30.09.2011 13:50:
 On 09/30/2011 02:40, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
 Hi, Doug.

 You just removed www/pyblosxom. But we have a pr, that update it to
 latest (not-vulnerable) version: http://bugs.freebsd.org/160682.

 Julien took that PR, when he's ready to do the update he can pull the
 files out of the Attic.


 Doug

 Ok, but as far i recall, there in ports@ was sounded a policy like we
 do not remove the ports with open pr's on them.

 I think you misunderstand what remove means in this context. :)  Or
 perhaps you've never worked with a version control system ... It's
 
 [just for thrulz]
 Yes, it's my second day around the computer system.
 [/just for thrulz]

I meant no offense. I don't know you, so I have no idea what your
experience is or isn't. :)

 I understand that it can be restored in one click, but what the point to
 remove it in first place if it known that someone already working on it
 and will undelete it in near time?

Because if, for whatever reason, Julien decides not to update it then
removing it on schedule is the safest course of action.

 As far i understand it makes commiter's life little a bit harder

No, it really, REALLY doesn't. Seriously.

 and most important - it confuses the
 users, who actually using this ports.

Which is more confusing to users:

1. Port is scheduled for removal, never gets updated, never gets removed.
2. Port that they cannot install anyway disappears for a short time,
then reappears in a usable, non-vulnerable state?

Also, please keep in mind that nothing depends on the ports that I
removed, so at worst we're talking a minor inconvenience for someone who
already has the port installed.

 Ok, actually i'm asking all this questions in first place because your
 action on pyblosxom did not conform with this sentence by bapt@:
 
 
 How can ports be removed if the solutions for them is in gnats?

 
 They won't before deleting ports, we always check gnats, if a PR exists
 then we leave the ports so that the PR can be committed
 
 
 http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-September/069998.html
 
 So i'm just curious what is the agreed policy about such ports? Please
 don't get me wrong.

Insert the word permanently in front of deleting in that sentence,
and I think you'll get the right idea.


hth,

Doug

-- 

Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much.
-- OK Go

Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS.
Yours for the right price.  :)  http://SupersetSolutions.com/

___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org