"Mikhail T." <mi+t...@aldan.algebra.com> writes: > Once again I am seeing this dreadful list and once again I am wondering... Why > are we removing ports simply for being "unmaintained"? > > Those with build-errors -- Ok, I understand, bit-rot happens. Those with > (much) > newer versions available -- sure. > > But simply "unmaintained" -- that does not seem right... > > graphics/qvplay is just an example -- linimon's list contains many more ports, > whose only "fault" is not having an active maintainer...
In this case, it's a port of software that hasn't been updated in well over a decade, specific to hardware that has been out of production for a long time as well. Objectively, it seems unlikely that anyone is actually using this port, and that it would be unlikely to work if somebody actually tried it. If people are using a port, then I would agree it should be kept regardless of maintainer status. But that doesn't mean keeping everything forever as long as it compiles. It's certainly possible that antoine@ has been a little overzealous in deprecating ports, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to have some evidence that any particular port has actually *worked* in the last ten or fifteen years. _______________________________________________ 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"
