On 2012-Apr-10, 11:20, Marcelo Araujo wrote: > 2012/4/10 Pietro Cerutti <g...@freebsd.org> > > > > > > I might agree on that. But how is a DEPRECATED port better than a BROKEN > > one in this regard? > > > > > In my point of view, no make sense have a bunch of ports that actually > doesn't works or because there is a fetch problem or even it is set as > BROKEN. Who never was upset when need and find a port but it is BROKEN for > some reason, In my view, have a port BROKEN or haven't it, is the same. Of > course, I mean when a port is BROKEN for all plataforms as well as for all > FreeBSD version.
I agree on that. > > I believe set it as DEPRECATED is a good way to make the maintainer take > attention to fix it soon as possible, due he has put effort to insert this > software on the ports tree in the past. What about submitting a PR, as we usually do for anything else? If it's ok to wait 15 days (maintainer timeout) to commit an update to a port that brings in important features, it is even more so to wait to deprecate one. > In case that has any issue related with the ports framework that make the > ports be broken, he can ping any developer to give him more time to fix or > even rollback the DEPRECATED commit with a proper message on the commit's > log. This is awkward. We're not supposed to spend our time rolling back unwanted commits. We're supposed to make sure that a commit made to someone else's port is wanted in the first place. > It also will let us know, what's happen with that port and maybe someone > else could give a hand to help the maintainer to fix it. Well, as I see it, marking a port as DEPRECATED is kind of a final decision. I.e., I'll start to look at alternatives and forget about it. If you mark a port as DEPRECATED and 12 hours later I back off your chance with a comment "I'm working on it", a really unconsistent and confused message will pass. -- Pietro Cerutti The FreeBSD Project g...@freebsd.org PGP Public Key: http://gahr.ch/pgp
pgpW8cZ2RQyFm.pgp
Description: PGP signature