On 04/08/14 18:12, Mikhail T. wrote:
On 08.04.2014 12:55, Tijl Coosemans wrote:
On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 09:57:48 -0400 Mikhail T. wrote:
On 08.04.2014 08:00, freebsd-ports-requ...@freebsd.org wrote:
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.
Why not? Why not "keep everything forever as long as it compiles"? Where
is this idea coming from, that stuff must be continuously updated to be
considered usable?
It doesn't have to be updated continuously, but it has to be used.
Keeping a port requires effort. It needs to be kept up to date with
infrastructural changes (like staging) and if nobody is using the port
that's just a waste of effort.
Tijl, there is no indication whatsoever, that ports on the chopping block are
not used. The argument put forth by the proponents of the removals is thus: "The
upstream authors haven't made a new release in a long time, therefor the
software must be neither any good, nor see much use."
I find this logic flawed -- some of my favorite books are more than 2000 years
old, for example... Their authors certainly aren't making new releases, yet they
continue to be maintained, built (published), and used by generations.
The closest we've ever come to estimating usage is the following: "If there is
any user-base to speak of, then there should be a person among them willing to
maintain the port -- or pay someone to maintain it." This, too, is flawed in my
opinion -- expecting a graphics-artist, a biologist, or an audiophile to also be
a half-decent software engineer is a stretch; expecting them to pay for
port-maintainership is also not fair, when the entire OS is free, done for fun,
rather than profit.
Though I agree, that unmaintained ports should be dropped when they break due to
things like security bugs or compiler-upgrades, the self-inflicted wounds like
infrastructure changes do not qualify. Volunteers taking it upon themselves to
perform such changes, should be prepared to deal with all that's required for
them.
Hi Mikhail,
I think the term "self-inflicted" is a little strong... we can't really
expect the tree to stand still. I would expect people to loudly
complain if their favourite port were dropped-- it's really not much
effort to bring back, and some do come back.
If I have 1000 ports to fix, and decide to drop 50 of them because
they're ancient and probably unused, it's no effort to restore and fix
three if someone yells, and I've saved the effort of fixing 47 unused ports.
Chris
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________
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"
