On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 04:47:41PM +0200, Pietro Cerutti wrote: > 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. >
That is a good option, next time I'll do that for maintained ports that are mark as BROKEN. I didn't intend to be disrespectful on other's work, I'm sorry if that is the fealing some could get, next time, I'll be more careful about this and send the deprecation stuff as PR. regards, Bapt
pgpm1695GMUu0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
