On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:05:35 +0200 "Julian H. Stacey" <j...@berklix.com> mentioned:
> Mark Linimon wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 10:32:30PM +0200, Julian H. Stacey wrote: > > > It is not responsible to threaten to remove ports without warning > > > between releases for non urgent reasons. > > > > portmgr has no such policy. > > > > Ports get deleted all the time due to various issues. I prefer to see > > a 1- or 2-month warning via EXPIRATION_DATE, but that's my personal > > preference, not a written policy. > > > > mcl > > Drive by ports shootings are becoming too frequent, & will get > FreeBSD a bad name as immature & poorly managed > A solution: Ensure a policy of expiry dates expire a release after > a warning is given in a previous releases (except in emergency). > I second this opinion. We might have not needed the policy a while ago when such deprecations were rare. Given that we gained several people working actively on this I'd like to see some policy regarding deprecation as well. I saw several occasions when ports were deprecated for no apparent reason, so I can understand Julian and other people dissatisfaction with this. What about requiring that the ports deprecated should be either broken or have known published vulnerabilties for a long period of time (say 6 months) for the start? Personally, I'd also love to see people deprecating ports provide a clear reasoning for deprecation in the commit message (not just "deprecated some old ports" etc), so one won't need to guess if he would like to fix/resurrect the port in the feature? Thanks! -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
pgp2aK1wO2h4c.pgp
Description: PGP signature