Re: Aggressive ports removal (was: svn commit: r546907 - head/x11-clocks/wmtime)

2020-08-30 Thread Adam Weinberger
> On Aug 29, 2020, at 20:33, Mark Linimon wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 06:50:22PM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: >> the problem is that we abuse the BROKEN variable. Ports that don't >> adapt aren't necessarily broken (unless they no longer build and are >> actually broken). We have a

Re: Aggressive ports removal (was: svn commit: r546907 - head/x11-clocks/wmtime)

2020-08-30 Thread Dan Langille
On Sat, Aug 29, 2020, at 8:50 PM, Adam Weinberger wrote: > Just a disclaimer: I’m speaking for myself here, not on behalf of portmgr@. > Also please keep in mind that I am perpetually, pathologically optimistic. > >> On Aug 29, 2020, at 18:01, Warner Losh wrote: >> >> >> Basically, it draws

Re: Aggressive ports removal (was: svn commit: r546907 - head/x11-clocks/wmtime)

2020-08-29 Thread Adam Weinberger
Just a disclaimer: I’m speaking for myself here, not on behalf of portmgr@. Also please keep in mind that I am perpetually, pathologically optimistic. > On Aug 29, 2020, at 18:01, Warner Losh wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 29, 2020, 5:27 PM Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: >> Sorry for the length of the

Aggressive ports removal (was: svn commit: r546907 - head/x11-clocks/wmtime)

2020-08-29 Thread Greg 'groggy' Lehey
Sorry for the length of the quotes, but I've added people who might not have seen the (relatively long) thread on this subject. This seems the best message to refer to. On Saturday, 29 August 2020 at 16:09:12 +0200, Stefan Esser wrote: > Am 29.08.20 um 15:32 schrieb Niclas Zeising: >> On