On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 13:12:48 -0400 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.
Volunteer time should not be wasted on ports nobody uses. Removing such ports is a good thing. It's impossible to prove that a port is really unused, but if there are enough indications that it is potentially unused it becomes reasonable to assume that it is. Lack of upstream development is one such indicator and by itself it may not be enough but in the examples you've given it isn't the only indicator. For qvplay for instance the main argument is that it is support software for a 250 kilopixel camera from the nineties. For xmms there's xmms2, audacious and numerous other multimedia players. Then, once it is reasonable to assume that a port is unused it is first marked deprecated which gives users some time to step forward. Only if nobody shows up in the given time frame is a port actually removed and even then it can still be restored in case some user does still show up. _______________________________________________ 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"
