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
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.
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
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
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
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
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 --
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
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
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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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.
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 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
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
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
-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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
29 matches
Mail list logo
