On 2012-Apr-10, 09:32, Marcelo Araujo wrote: > 2012/4/10 Mark Linimon <lini...@lonesome.com> > > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 01:45:38PM +0200, Frederic Culot wrote: > > > To conciliate such a necessary action without hurting the feelings of > > those > > > maintainers who despite their work could not update the state of their > > port in a > > > timely manner, maybe it would be good to be more verbose in the log of > > such > > > commits. Inspired by linimon's emails, something like the following > > could be > > > added: > > > > I do get some responses from maintainers to those emails, and (except > > in the cases where the email gets stuck in my mbox) I honor their requests > > for an extension. OTOH in general I get personal replies and not replies > > to the list, so people aren't seeing that interaction in public. > > > > From my standpoint, by the time something has been broken for 6 months, > > the maintainer will have already gotten multiple emails from portsmon. > > So, I'm going to have to say I'm a little frustrated if I need to send > > another round of mail even on top of that. > > > > > I strongly agree with the bapt's action to set some ports that are often > broken to deprecated or even some of them that are broken for a long time > to deprecated. > > There is nothing more frustrating than try to install a port an it doesn't > fetch or doesn't build.
I might agree on that. But how is a DEPRECATED port better than a BROKEN one in this regard? -- Pietro Cerutti The FreeBSD Project g...@freebsd.org PGP Public Key: http://gahr.ch/pgp
pgpbmPvdVo2NB.pgp
Description: PGP signature