On 16/11/2011 08:52, Matthew Seaman wrote:
>> 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.
So I spent a bit of tim
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
> PORTR
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 w
On 15/11/2011 19:25, Chris Rees wrote:
> On 15 November 2011 19:19, Matthew Seaman
> 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 portmaste
On 15 November 2011 19:19, Matthew Seaman
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
>
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 w
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
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-uns
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 --
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 b
On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Doug Barton wrote:
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
On 13 Nov 2011 21:20, "Doug Barton" 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, th
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 2011-Nov-11 12:40:12 -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
>
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 b
-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,
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
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
> 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/
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:07:08 +0400
Dmitry Marakasov 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
On 11 November 2011 13:09, Jerry 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
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
> > >
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:
* 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
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
* Baptiste Daroussin (b...@freebsd.org) wrote:
> > I noticed the following in the commit log:
> > %
> > % Modified files:
> > %.MOVED
> > %develMakefile
> > %graphics Makefile
> > % Removed files:
> > %devel/soup Makefi
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!
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.i
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
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://b
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.
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 pu
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.
Do
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
34 matches
Mail list logo
