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"