Re: Recent ports removal
On 16/11/2011 08:52, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> How about something like the attached? Rather than adding to the INDEX, >> >> this appends DEPRECATED, FORBIDDEN, IGNORE, BROKEN and EXPIRATION_DATE >> >> values to pkg-message, creating one if the port doesn't already have it. So I spent a bit of time polishing up my idea and have submitted it: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=162924 > Won't work for my use case, which is 'portmaster -L --index-only' With this change you could display the pkg-message with all the flags for DEPRECATION etc. before doing any package update. You'ld have to download the package tarball first though. Anyhow, as an aside from all that, while working on this I discovered that some 1958 ports contain explicit code which is some variation on post-install: @${CAT} ${PKGMESSAGE} Surely a candidate for genericizing and factoring out into bsd.ports.mk? Except that some hundred-ish of those ports are non-trivial to modify simply by running a script, due to conditionalising the display of pkg-message on other settings, or using pkg-message for messages at the pre-build stage or other oddities. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Recent ports removal
On 16/11/2011 08:20, Doug Barton wrote: > On 11/15/2011 11:01, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> On 11/11/2011 22:23, Doug Barton wrote: By its > nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, port > tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no > PORTREVISION bump happen. >> >>> portmaster -L will warn you about ports marked >>> DEPRECATED/FORBIDDEN/IGNORE/BROKEN if you run it against an updated >>> ports tree. One area where we actually can improve here is to also put >>> this information in the INDEX. I have an idea for that, just haven't >>> been able to put the time into making it happen. >> >> How about something like the attached? Rather than adding to the INDEX, >> this appends DEPRECATED, FORBIDDEN, IGNORE, BROKEN and EXPIRATION_DATE >> values to pkg-message, creating one if the port doesn't already have it. > > Won't work for my use case, which is 'portmaster -L --index-only' Orthogonal to your use case: adding this sort of stuff to the INDEX is a good idea too. Not everyone uses portmaster though. Also changing the format of the INDEX has ramifications with various 3rd party software that uses it, so it's going to be some effort to get it all sorted and debugged. (BTW. Very happy to code up any proposed experimental INDEX formats in my FreeBSD::Portindex modules or receive patches.) The change I propose here is fairly minimal, and it should ensure that any user of ports or packages sees notification through mechanisms that already exist. Since they will see this at the point they install a deprecated port -- coupling that with bumping PORTREVISION at the point the port is deprecated should bring such changes to the attention of users in time for them to raise any objections / provide fixes etc. In fact, as I think about it this morning, another idea is this sort of mechanism could be used to notify users of unmaintained ports and ask for volunteers to maintain them. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Recent ports removal
On 11/15/2011 11:01, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 11/11/2011 22:23, Doug Barton wrote: >>> By its nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, port tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no PORTREVISION bump happen. > >> portmaster -L will warn you about ports marked >> DEPRECATED/FORBIDDEN/IGNORE/BROKEN if you run it against an updated >> ports tree. One area where we actually can improve here is to also put >> this information in the INDEX. I have an idea for that, just haven't >> been able to put the time into making it happen. > > How about something like the attached? Rather than adding to the INDEX, > this appends DEPRECATED, FORBIDDEN, IGNORE, BROKEN and EXPIRATION_DATE > values to pkg-message, creating one if the port doesn't already have it. Won't work for my use case, which is 'portmaster -L --index-only' -- "We could put the whole Internet into a book." "Too practical." Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
On 15/11/2011 19:25, Chris Rees wrote: > On 15 November 2011 19:19, Matthew Seaman > wrote: >> On 15/11/2011 19:01, Matthew Seaman wrote: >>> On 11/11/2011 22:23, Doug Barton wrote: > By its >> nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, port >> tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no >> PORTREVISION bump happen. >>> portmaster -L will warn you about ports marked DEPRECATED/FORBIDDEN/IGNORE/BROKEN if you run it against an updated ports tree. One area where we actually can improve here is to also put this information in the INDEX. I have an idea for that, just haven't been able to put the time into making it happen. >>> >>> How about something like the attached? >> >> Ooops. Wrong diff. Like this: > > Why have you included IGNOREd? > > Just curious A pedantic desire to cover all possibilities. It probably doesn't need to be there, but my (admittedly cursory) reading of the code suggests that by defining NO_IGNORE it could still be possible to build a pkg. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Recent ports removal
On 15 November 2011 19:19, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 15/11/2011 19:01, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> On 11/11/2011 22:23, Doug Barton wrote: By its > nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, port > tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no > PORTREVISION bump happen. >> >>> portmaster -L will warn you about ports marked >>> DEPRECATED/FORBIDDEN/IGNORE/BROKEN if you run it against an updated >>> ports tree. One area where we actually can improve here is to also put >>> this information in the INDEX. I have an idea for that, just haven't >>> been able to put the time into making it happen. >> >> How about something like the attached? > > Ooops. Wrong diff. Like this: Why have you included IGNOREd? Just curious Chris ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
On 15/11/2011 19:01, Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 11/11/2011 22:23, Doug Barton wrote: >>> By its nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, port tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no PORTREVISION bump happen. > >> portmaster -L will warn you about ports marked >> DEPRECATED/FORBIDDEN/IGNORE/BROKEN if you run it against an updated >> ports tree. One area where we actually can improve here is to also put >> this information in the INDEX. I have an idea for that, just haven't >> been able to put the time into making it happen. > > How about something like the attached? Ooops. Wrong diff. Like this: -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW Index: bsd.port.mk === RCS file: /home/ncvs/ports/Mk/bsd.port.mk,v retrieving revision 1.699 diff -u -u -r1.699 bsd.port.mk --- bsd.port.mk 9 Nov 2011 08:53:12 - 1.699 +++ bsd.port.mk 15 Nov 2011 18:59:49 - @@ -4293,8 +4293,9 @@ _BUILD_SEQ=build-message pre-build pre-build-script do-build \ post-build post-build-script _INSTALL_DEP= build -_INSTALL_SEQ= install-message check-install-conflicts run-depends lib-depends apply-slist pre-install \ - pre-install-script generate-plist check-already-installed +_INSTALL_SEQ= install-message check-install-conflicts run-depends lib-depends \ + apply-slist deprecate-and-expire pre-install pre-install-script \ + generate-plist check-already-installed _INSTALL_SUSEQ= check-umask install-mtree pre-su-install \ pre-su-install-script create-users-groups do-install \ install-desktop-entries install-license install-rc-script \ @@ -5615,6 +5616,34 @@ .endif .endif +.if !target(deprecate-and-expire) +deprecate-and-expire: +.if defined(DEPRECATED) || defined(FORBIDDEN) || defined(BROKEN) || \ + defined(IGNORE) || defined(EXPIRATION_DATE) + @if [ -f ${_PKGMESSAGE_SAVE} -a ! -f ${PKGMESSAGE} ] ; then \ +${CP} ${_PKGMESSAGE_SAVE} ${PKGMESSAGE} ; \ + fi +.for i in DEPRECATED FORBIDDEN BROKEN +.if defined(${i}) + @${ECHO_MSG} "===> This port is ${i}: ${${i}}" + @${ECHO_CMD} "===> This port is ${i}: ${${i}}" >> ${PKGMESSAGE} +.endif +.endfor +.if defined(IGNORE) + @${ECHO_MSG} "===> This port should have been IGNORED: ${IGNORE}" + @${ECHO_CMD} "===> This port should have been IGNORED: ${IGNORE}" >> \ + ${PKGMESSAGE} +.endif +.if defined(EXPIRATION_DATE) + @${ECHO_MSG} "===> EXPIRATION DATE is set to: ${EXPIRATION_DATE}" + @${ECHO_CMD} "===> EXPIRATION DATE is set to: ${EXPIRATION_DATE}" >> \ + ${PKGMESSAGE} +.endif +_PKGMESSAGE_SAVE :=${PKGMESSAGE} +PKGMESSAGE = ${WRKDIR}/${_PKGMESSAGE_SAVE:T} +.endif +.endif + # Generate packing list. Also tests to make sure all required package # files exist. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Recent ports removal
On 11/11/2011 22:23, Doug Barton wrote: >> By its >> > nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, port >> > tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no >> > PORTREVISION bump happen. > portmaster -L will warn you about ports marked > DEPRECATED/FORBIDDEN/IGNORE/BROKEN if you run it against an updated > ports tree. One area where we actually can improve here is to also put > this information in the INDEX. I have an idea for that, just haven't > been able to put the time into making it happen. How about something like the attached? Rather than adding to the INDEX, this appends DEPRECATED, FORBIDDEN, IGNORE, BROKEN and EXPIRATION_DATE values to pkg-message, creating one if the port doesn't already have it. The duplication of echoing messages to STDOUT as well as the pkg-message file is not ideal, but displaying pkg-message at install time is not automatic when installing from ports. It might be an idea to have a standard port-install target to display ${PKGMESSAGE} if the file exists. Cheers, Matthew -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 7 Priory Courtyard Flat 3 PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Ramsgate JID: matt...@infracaninophile.co.uk Kent, CT11 9PW Index: Makefile === RCS file: /home/ncvs/ports/ports-mgmt/p5-FreeBSD-Portindex/Makefile,v retrieving revision 1.20 diff -u -u -r1.20 Makefile --- Makefile29 Aug 2011 04:43:56 - 1.20 +++ Makefile26 Oct 2011 08:14:43 - @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ # $FreeBSD: ports/ports-mgmt/p5-FreeBSD-Portindex/Makefile,v 1.20 2011/08/29 04:43:56 dougb Exp $ PORTNAME= FreeBSD-Portindex -PORTVERSION= 2.4 +PORTVERSION= 2.6 CATEGORIES=ports-mgmt perl5 MASTER_SITES= http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/portindex/ PKGNAMEPREFIX= p5- @@ -15,9 +15,20 @@ LICENSE= BSD +# GraphViz not required for portindex to run or generate GraphViz +# format output: this is only needed to render the output on the same +# machine. +OPTIONS= GRAPHVIZ "Add GraphViz run-time dependency" off + BUILD_DEPENDS= ${SITE_PERL}/${PERL_ARCH}/BerkeleyDB.pm:${PORTSDIR}/databases/p5-BerkeleyDB RUN_DEPENDS:= ${BUILD_DEPENDS} +.include + +.if defined(WITH_GRAPHVIZ) && !defined(WITHOUT_GRAPHVIZ) +RUN_DEPENDS+= dot:${PORTSDIR}/graphics/graphviz +.endif + USE_XZ=yes PERL_CONFIGURE=yes Index: distinfo === RCS file: /home/ncvs/ports/ports-mgmt/p5-FreeBSD-Portindex/distinfo,v retrieving revision 1.15 diff -u -u -r1.15 distinfo --- distinfo29 Aug 2011 04:43:56 - 1.15 +++ distinfo26 Oct 2011 08:14:43 - @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@ -SHA256 (FreeBSD-Portindex-2.4.tar.xz) = 78f461e35dcadb9fb79665c698825fd54e081030858cf023bedfeb47b73891d0 -SIZE (FreeBSD-Portindex-2.4.tar.xz) = 50724 +SHA256 (FreeBSD-Portindex-2.6.tar.xz) = 909ea1b4ff67ea08617a54452b6ed9e999787d6ff3458cb59fb6aa81ecc67c13 +SIZE (FreeBSD-Portindex-2.6.tar.xz) = 51828 Index: pkg-plist === RCS file: /home/ncvs/ports/ports-mgmt/p5-FreeBSD-Portindex/pkg-plist,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -u -u -r1.5 pkg-plist --- pkg-plist 14 Mar 2011 16:05:35 - 1.5 +++ pkg-plist 26 Oct 2011 08:14:43 - @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ @exec [ ! -f %B/portindex.cfg ] && cp -p %B/%f %B/portindex.cfg || true %%SITE_PERL%%/FreeBSD/Portindex/Config.pm %%SITE_PERL%%/FreeBSD/Portindex/Category.pm +%%SITE_PERL%%/FreeBSD/Portindex/GraphViz.pm %%SITE_PERL%%/FreeBSD/Portindex/Port.pm %%SITE_PERL%%/FreeBSD/Portindex/Tree.pm %%SITE_PERL%%/FreeBSD/Portindex/TreeObject.pm signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Recent ports removal
If it were to be "consensus" we wouldn't be moving anywhere as a project, so that certainly won't count. ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
Am 10.11.2011 12:06, schrieb Dmitry Marakasov: > Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken, it's > useable, you may not remove it, period. It appears to me that yours - although shared with mi@ - is a minority vote, and on top of that, also one with little weight because -- and this is my personal perception that is likely to differ -- it is from one of the people who nag about the policy of fact, and rather talk, than grab a port and fix it so it can stay. Where "work" in the previous paragraph can be substituted with providing other resources, like recruiting new volunteers, bribing current contributors, or thereabout. Nagging from your seat isn't helpful. Now, let's get constructive, here are my ideas for the current round of port removal nagging: 1. I'd like to officially propose to remove the MAINTAINER=po...@freebsd.org tag from unmaintained ports and have the ports/Mk/bsd.*.mk stuff be explicit about the port being unmaintained, so as to pull this rug from underneath the naggers so they can no longer delude anyone to believe a port were "maintained by ports@". 2. We could see to exposing deprecations or somethings more clearly. portmaster -L is a contributor here, but I think it needs to move closer to the baseline source. Marking such mars in INDEX (dougb@ mentioned that) sounds useful to me, if it's viable. Else we can consider bumping PORTREVISION when marking a port FORBIDDEN or DEPRECATED so that this change gets exposed. 3. Perhaps we should also consider not to build packages for ports that have the slightest mar (DEPRECATED, unmaintained, whatever) -- but that requires more discussion and thought. You won't leave footprints (read: make any difference to existing practice) unless and until you walk (read: work). ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
On 13.11.2011 16:20, Doug Barton wrote: You turned a comparison of the discussion of the concept of ports removal generally to the removal of individual ports and turned it into an ad hominem attack on the quality of*my* reasoning. Huh? This is an excellent example of why I, for one, don't bother replying substantively to your messages anymore. And yet, you are going to have to... Because you are not doing your removals as an individual committer (if you were, your desire to remove a port could've been stopped by *my* desire to keep it). And as long as you imply having some sort of governing authority behind you (such as a portmgr hat -- permanent or temporary), you need to justify your actions to keep the consent of the governed. But I'm not asking you to reply to the uncivil, sarcastic, and otherwise flawed *me*. My proposal was for you and the rest of the "removers" to articulate your reasoning on a web-page. That would carry your message (calmly thought-through and edited) to all users and colleagues alike, including those too polite to question your actions publicly. Please, oblige. On 13.11.2011 16:31, Chris Rees wrote: Oh my it's two months ago. Yes. And my recollection from back then is that portmgr was reviewing the issue (in the quiet of Olympus away from the noise of all the silly mortals) and was going to render their decision (eloquently and convincingly to all)... That has not happened, but the removals continue to this day... Can we move on? Ports are deprecated and removed. Insecure/unmaintained ports are harmful. No, we can not move on. It should, by now, be obvious to all, that there is no consensus on when a port should be removed. And yet, a fraction of the committers take it upon themselves to remove ports based on their own credentials -- much to the dissatisfaction of the opposing fraction. I fail to see, why or how the opinion of crees@ and dougb@ outweighs that of stas@ and mi@. To be sure, both factions have other members, but nobody conducted a vote -- and we don't even know, what such a vote would mean anyway. Yours, -mi ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Doug Barton wrote: Yes, we realize that you, and a small minority of other interested parties, have this belief in spite of endless repetition of the reasoning, by the people who do the actual work to keep the ports tree functional, as to why your desire to keep every port is not a workable solution. I'm one of this "small minority" and can't recall hearing the actual "reasoning" repeated even once -- without every argument being soundly rebutted by myself and other "interested parties". The last discussion, that I can recall ended with an assurance, that the matter is being discussed by the portmgr@ and that the discussion's results will soon be delivered to the unwashed masses. If, indeed, the sound arguments exist, then, perhaps, they can be summarized on a web-page of some sort -- together with the attempts at rebuttal and the counter-rebuttals? There is clearly a vocal share of contributors that currently disagree with portmgr's line -- and our claim to represent a sizable portion of users is just as good as your claim, that we are nothing but a "small minority". Please, convince us so we can all go along with the consensus -- and relieve you from having to repeat your reasoning (whatever it is) monthly... Thanks! However the fact that no one has made a peep about them is a pretty strong indication that they were simply dead weight that we were carrying for no good reason. You've gone from "small minority of other interested parties" to "no one has made a peep" in a single e-mail! If this is the quality of the rest of your reasoning, than you should not be surprised, that it has not really resonated despite the "endless repetition"... -mi ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
On 13 Nov 2011 21:20, "Doug Barton" wrote: > > On 11/13/2011 12:25, Mikhail T. wrote: > > You've gone from "small minority of other interested parties" to "no one > > has made a peep" in a single e-mail! If this is the quality of the rest > > of your reasoning, than you should not be surprised, that it has not > > really resonated despite the "endless repetition"... > > You turned a comparison of the discussion of the concept of ports > removal generally to the removal of individual ports and turned it into > an ad hominem attack on the quality of *my* reasoning. This is an > excellent example of why I, for one, don't bother replying substantively > to your messages anymore. > > > Doug Oh my it's two months ago. Is it? Can we move on? Ports are deprecated and removed. Insecure/unmaintained ports are harmful. If you care, step up to maintain them. Seriously. Or stop complaining. Chris PS only replying to Doug because it's the latest email, not because I think he disagrees with me. ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
On 11/13/2011 12:25, Mikhail T. wrote: > You've gone from "small minority of other interested parties" to "no one > has made a peep" in a single e-mail! If this is the quality of the rest > of your reasoning, than you should not be surprised, that it has not > really resonated despite the "endless repetition"... You turned a comparison of the discussion of the concept of ports removal generally to the removal of individual ports and turned it into an ad hominem attack on the quality of *my* reasoning. This is an excellent example of why I, for one, don't bother replying substantively to your messages anymore. Doug -- "We could put the whole Internet into a book." "Too practical." Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
On 2011-Nov-11 12:40:12 -0800, Stanislav Sedov wrote: >Because portmgr@ is using it? There're numerous cases when unmaintained, >buggy, >vulnerable and plainly dangerous stuff stays in tree because someone in portmgr >gang likes it when other applications not used by them being removed without >prior discussion notice. Because your opinion doesn't matter. Neither is >mine. I am getting heartily tired of your continuous tirade against the portmgr@ community. Please provide evidence to backup your accusations or retract them. As for the removal of obsolete ports - it has been made perfectly clear on many occasions that a MAINTAINER of ports@ means that port is _not_ maintained. If it's a port you use, feel free to take over maintainership. Otherwise that port is subject to removal if any problems with it crop up. -- Peter Jeremy pgpsPMP9x6Stn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Recent ports removal
On 11/11/2011 14:15, Xin LI wrote: > (I just picked one message to do a reply-all, not specific to any one > single message but all of them). > > Technically speaking the current approach's problem is that the user > might have no chance of seeing it before the port is removed. That's going to be true no matter what approach we use, or what time period we choose. There are plenty of boxes that just sit there happily doing their work without being updated. If that's the case, then the fact that a port is deprecated or removed isn't really a problem for them. Vulnerable ports are a different issue, but we have portaudit for that. > By its > nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, port > tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no > PORTREVISION bump happen. portmaster -L will warn you about ports marked DEPRECATED/FORBIDDEN/IGNORE/BROKEN if you run it against an updated ports tree. One area where we actually can improve here is to also put this information in the INDEX. I have an idea for that, just haven't been able to put the time into making it happen. > For users who install from packages, there > is no deprecation message at all, and it's pretty likely that these > user when updating to a new version suddenly find the software missing. I would think that the lack of a package would be a pretty clear message that there is an issue that needs attention, wouldn't you? :) Perhaps we need to rethink the policy on whether packages should be created for deprecated ports. > I think if we want to deprecate ports in a constant manner, we need to > do a better job of letting the user (or let's say potential > contributor) know it. I think you're right that we can do more, so what is your proposal? Doug -- "We could put the whole Internet into a book." "Too practical." Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 (I just picked one message to do a reply-all, not specific to any one single message but all of them). Technically speaking the current approach's problem is that the user might have no chance of seeing it before the port is removed. By its nature, deprecated ports tends not to be updated for long time, port tools like portmaster, portupgrade will not even see it because no PORTREVISION bump happen. For users who install from packages, there is no deprecation message at all, and it's pretty likely that these user when updating to a new version suddenly find the software missing. I think if we want to deprecate ports in a constant manner, we need to do a better job of letting the user (or let's say potential contributor) know it. My own server in China have went offline for a few months before my friend rebuild and install one for me, and I suddenly noticed that some of previous ports maintained by someone else have been marked as DEPRECATED because upstream gone. Think about this: FreeBSD is not just a product, it's also a project and a community. It's never an overkill to do more things to keep developers, contributors and potential contributors happy and continue to contribute. Making them happy is not "do whatever they want us to do" but to think more about "what they would think, and how we can improve". Cheers, - -- Xin LI https://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve! Live free or die -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJOvZ5uAAoJEATO+BI/yjfBkxYIAKwfR3KRGr4l0AY1fV8Os0MR +0GTUlOnTtaIybk81NcmLhyonSr1GsKAbqyAz5D9hsVFWdNOIeP6G/AnYRIak9Gs ffrFCIN6WjiFmYORQVSTOl3noQmAC4E066vl2PceOUL8sHyHI6O85SuraY0noaVQ p3AV58sQqIuUTpV4f3gPG1nFiDrJT1ZxtLANWjveSNNKDrdcalgjPtPbv1DUYPgp 10me7cVkqp5rrCs2fVUP92037x7XljAZjDi8AaEPf/LtV7Rb+IgC9bE1erk8u8w5 RHoWp2er6szTi70v3CUH7YI7WV31wpphBCY75w/kcvJ4FW1OmUOMjXksVfvLZo8= =xhBR -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
On 11/10/2011 03:06, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: > * Baptiste Daroussin (b...@freebsd.org) wrote: >> They have been deprecated for a while and noone said anything about those, >> that >> is the purpose of the DEPRECATED status. The "not used anymore" mean not >> used in > > Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken, it's > useable, you may not remove it, period. Yes, we realize that you, and a small minority of other interested parties, have this belief in spite of endless repetition of the reasoning, by the people who do the actual work to keep the ports tree functional, as to why your desire to keep every port is not a workable solution. I personally have handled the removal of hundreds of broken and vulnerable ports over the last several months. A very small percentage (2% perhaps?) were ports that people cared enough to fix, and the fact that someone fixed them is a great outcome. OTOH, in several cases after contacting the port's maintainer I was told that yes indeed, they would like the port removed, but were unsure of how to go about it. The removed ports are in the CVS attic where any interested party can retrieve and fix them. However the fact that no one has made a peep about them is a pretty strong indication that they were simply dead weight that we were carrying for no good reason. Doug -- "We could put the whole Internet into a book." "Too practical." Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:40:12PM -0800, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > Because portmgr@ is using it? There're numerous cases when unmaintained, > buggy, > vulnerable and plainly dangerous stuff stays in tree because someone in > portmgr > gang likes it when other applications not used by them being removed without > prior discussion notice. There are always periodic emails, both to individual maintainers and ports@, that summarize which ports are deprecated, expiring, and forbidden. That's served as the best springboard for discussion I know how to do in an automated fashion, for several years. In many rounds of those emails I get responses which result in ports being kept from the scrapheap. I'm not aware of vulnerable things that stay in (other than gnats3, which is still part of our infrastructure), and php52, which apparently is so widely used that we must continue to support it despite our best effrots to clean up the tree. Which other ones are there? >From your email I'm sure you don't believe me, but we are attempting to be objective about removing stale, broken, and dangerous code. It's an imperfect art and relies on judgement calls. Surely we can come up with a better alternative than "just leave ports in forever". I don't think this serves our users well. mcl ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
> Why don't we take out Gnome and KDE then? I don't use it. It's this kind of comment that is souring me on the FreeBSD community. Can't we just disagree politely anymore? mcl ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:07:08 +0400 Dmitry Marakasov mentioned: > * Martin Wilke (m...@freebsd.org) wrote: > > > >> They have been deprecated for a while and noone said anything about > > >> those, that > > >> is the purpose of the DEPRECATED status. The "not used anymore" mean not > > >> used in > > > Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken, it's > > > useable, you may not remove it, period. > > > > > >> the portstree (ie no more depended on). > > > Most of the portstree is leaf ports, now what? > > > > > >> If someone really needs it, he can: > > > What we need is to not have to do extra work and to not have extra noise > > > on the maillist because someone does unneeded things. I really don't > > > want to call that vandalism. > > > > > You can't only put in u have also to put out. > > Why don't we take out Gnome and KDE then? I don't use it. > Because portmgr@ is using it? There're numerous cases when unmaintained, buggy, vulnerable and plainly dangerous stuff stays in tree because someone in portmgr gang likes it when other applications not used by them being removed without prior discussion notice. Because your opinion doesn't matter. Neither is mine. Like in old good USSR times... -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
On 11 November 2011 13:09, Jerry wrote: > On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:07:08 +0400 > Dmitry Marakasov articulated: > >> * Martin Wilke (m...@freebsd.org) wrote: >> >> > >> They have been deprecated for a while and noone said anything >> > >> about those, that is the purpose of the DEPRECATED status. The >> > >> "not used anymore" mean not used in >> > > Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken, >> > > it's useable, you may not remove it, period. >> > > >> > >> the portstree (ie no more depended on). >> > > Most of the portstree is leaf ports, now what? >> > > >> > >> If someone really needs it, he can: >> > > What we need is to not have to do extra work and to not have >> > > extra noise on the maillist because someone does unneeded things. >> > > I really don't want to call that vandalism. >> > > >> > You can't only put in u have also to put out. >> >> Why don't we take out Gnome and KDE then? I don't use it. > > That reality might come sooner than you think but for an entirely > different reason. > > http://www.technograte.com/2011/05/18/gnome-to-drop-support-for-bsd-solaris-unix/ > > http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/05/gnome-to-drop-support-for-bsd-solaris-unix/ > Hm. The real problem of course is that although addport is written in Perl, rmport is written in sh; thus making it much more convenient to use on a machine without Perl. Possible solutions: - Reimport Perl to base - Rewrite addport to sh (though that would undo a lot of recent work :/) - Rewrite rmport in perl? This way we could make a better equilibrium -- a committer looking to fiddle a category Makefile would no longer be forced to choose between installing Perl and removing a port, which would remove the incentive to remove rather than add. Chris ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:07:08 +0400 Dmitry Marakasov articulated: > * Martin Wilke (m...@freebsd.org) wrote: > > > >> They have been deprecated for a while and noone said anything > > >> about those, that is the purpose of the DEPRECATED status. The > > >> "not used anymore" mean not used in > > > Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken, > > > it's useable, you may not remove it, period. > > > > > >> the portstree (ie no more depended on). > > > Most of the portstree is leaf ports, now what? > > > > > >> If someone really needs it, he can: > > > What we need is to not have to do extra work and to not have > > > extra noise on the maillist because someone does unneeded things. > > > I really don't want to call that vandalism. > > > > > You can't only put in u have also to put out. > > Why don't we take out Gnome and KDE then? I don't use it. That reality might come sooner than you think but for an entirely different reason. http://www.technograte.com/2011/05/18/gnome-to-drop-support-for-bsd-solaris-unix/ http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/05/gnome-to-drop-support-for-bsd-solaris-unix/ -- Jerry ♔ ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
Le 11.11.2011 11:07, Dmitry Marakasov a écrit : Why don't we take out Gnome and KDE then? I don't use it. Cause, there is still guys that are ready to maintain them, and, futhermore, some stuff in the ports tree that depend on them ? -- David Marec, mailto:david.ma...@davenulle.org http://user.lamaiziere.net/david/Site http://www.diablotins.org/ ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
* Martin Wilke (m...@freebsd.org) wrote: > >> They have been deprecated for a while and noone said anything about those, > >> that > >> is the purpose of the DEPRECATED status. The "not used anymore" mean not > >> used in > > Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken, it's > > useable, you may not remove it, period. > > > >> the portstree (ie no more depended on). > > Most of the portstree is leaf ports, now what? > > > >> If someone really needs it, he can: > > What we need is to not have to do extra work and to not have extra noise > > on the maillist because someone does unneeded things. I really don't > > want to call that vandalism. > > > You can't only put in u have also to put out. Why don't we take out Gnome and KDE then? I don't use it. -- Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D amd...@amdmi3.ru ..: jabber: amd...@jabber.ruhttp://www.amdmi3.ru ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
On 11/10/2011 11:06, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: * Baptiste Daroussin (b...@freebsd.org) wrote: I noticed the following in the commit log: % % Modified files: %.MOVED %develMakefile %graphics Makefile % Removed files: %devel/soup Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist %devel/soup/files patch-Makefile.in patch-configure % patch-docs::reference::Makefile.in % patch-soup-0.7.11-gcc41 % patch-src_libsoup_soup-message.c % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-soap-memory.c % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-soap-parse.c % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-typecodes.c %graphics/clutter-qt Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist %graphics/librsvg Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist %graphics/librsvg/files patch-Makefile.in patch-configure % patch-librsvg-config.in patch-rsvg-ft.c % patch-test-ft-gtk.c patch-test-ft.c %graphics/p5-clutter Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist % Log: % 2011-11-06 devel/soup: Unmaintain, use devel/libsoup % 2011-11-06 graphics/clutter-qt: upstream distfile and doesn't build, and %doesn't seem to be developed anymore % 2011-11-06 graphics/p5-clutter: upstream distfile disappeard, and doesn't seem to be developed anymore % 2011-11-06 graphics/librsvg: unmaintained and not used anymore I just cannot get the commit message. librsvg -- not used by whom? Personally, I used it in one of my older projects (~ 10 years old) which I don't plan to rework to use rsvg2/gtk2 because it doesn't make sense for it. So how do I use my project now on FreeBSD? It's also a lie that it's not maintained, it's maintained by ports@ mailing list and the community. So please, restore it. The same also probably goes for other ports, but I don't have enough details to comment. Thanks! They have been deprecated for a while and noone said anything about those, that is the purpose of the DEPRECATED status. The "not used anymore" mean not used in Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken, it's useable, you may not remove it, period. the portstree (ie no more depended on). Most of the portstree is leaf ports, now what? If someone really needs it, he can: What we need is to not have to do extra work and to not have extra noise on the maillist because someone does unneeded things. I really don't want to call that vandalism. You can't only put in u have also to put out. -- +-oOO--(_)--OOo-+ With best Regards, Martin Wilke (miwi_(at)_FreeBSD.org) Mess with the Best, Die like the Rest ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
* Baptiste Daroussin (b...@freebsd.org) wrote: > > I noticed the following in the commit log: > > % > > % Modified files: > > %.MOVED > > %develMakefile > > %graphics Makefile > > % Removed files: > > %devel/soup Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist > > %devel/soup/files patch-Makefile.in patch-configure > > % patch-docs::reference::Makefile.in > > % patch-soup-0.7.11-gcc41 > > % patch-src_libsoup_soup-message.c > > % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-soap-memory.c > > % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-soap-parse.c > > % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-typecodes.c > > %graphics/clutter-qt Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist > > %graphics/librsvg Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist > > %graphics/librsvg/files patch-Makefile.in patch-configure > > % patch-librsvg-config.in patch-rsvg-ft.c > > % patch-test-ft-gtk.c patch-test-ft.c > > %graphics/p5-clutter Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist > > % Log: > > % 2011-11-06 devel/soup: Unmaintain, use devel/libsoup > > % 2011-11-06 graphics/clutter-qt: upstream distfile and doesn't build, and > > %doesn't seem to be developed anymore > > % 2011-11-06 graphics/p5-clutter: upstream distfile disappeard, and > > doesn't seem to be developed anymore > > % 2011-11-06 graphics/librsvg: unmaintained and not used anymore > > > > I just cannot get the commit message. librsvg -- not used by whom? > > Personally, > > I used it in one of my older projects (~ 10 years old) which I don't plan > > to rework to use rsvg2/gtk2 because it doesn't make sense for it. So how > > do I use my project now on FreeBSD? > > > > It's also a lie that it's not maintained, it's maintained by ports@ mailing > > list and the community. So please, restore it. > > > > The same also probably goes for other ports, but I don't have enough details > > to comment. > > > > Thanks! > > > > They have been deprecated for a while and noone said anything about those, > that > is the purpose of the DEPRECATED status. The "not used anymore" mean not used > in Why should we go through it again and again? If it's not broken, it's useable, you may not remove it, period. > the portstree (ie no more depended on). Most of the portstree is leaf ports, now what? > If someone really needs it, he can: What we need is to not have to do extra work and to not have extra noise on the maillist because someone does unneeded things. I really don't want to call that vandalism. -- Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D amd...@amdmi3.ru ..: jabber: amd...@jabber.ruhttp://www.amdmi3.ru ___ 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"
Re: Recent ports removal
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 12:43:25PM -0800, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > Hi! > > I noticed the following in the commit log: > % > % Modified files: > %.MOVED > %develMakefile > %graphics Makefile > % Removed files: > %devel/soup Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist > %devel/soup/files patch-Makefile.in patch-configure > % patch-docs::reference::Makefile.in > % patch-soup-0.7.11-gcc41 > % patch-src_libsoup_soup-message.c > % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-soap-memory.c > % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-soap-parse.c > % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-typecodes.c > %graphics/clutter-qt Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist > %graphics/librsvg Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist > %graphics/librsvg/files patch-Makefile.in patch-configure > % patch-librsvg-config.in patch-rsvg-ft.c > % patch-test-ft-gtk.c patch-test-ft.c > %graphics/p5-clutter Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist > % Log: > % 2011-11-06 devel/soup: Unmaintain, use devel/libsoup > % 2011-11-06 graphics/clutter-qt: upstream distfile and doesn't build, and > %doesn't seem to be developed anymore > % 2011-11-06 graphics/p5-clutter: upstream distfile disappeard, and doesn't > seem to be developed anymore > % 2011-11-06 graphics/librsvg: unmaintained and not used anymore > > I just cannot get the commit message. librsvg -- not used by whom? > Personally, > I used it in one of my older projects (~ 10 years old) which I don't plan > to rework to use rsvg2/gtk2 because it doesn't make sense for it. So how > do I use my project now on FreeBSD? > > It's also a lie that it's not maintained, it's maintained by ports@ mailing > list and the community. So please, restore it. > > The same also probably goes for other ports, but I don't have enough details > to comment. > > Thanks! > They have been deprecated for a while and noone said anything about those, that is the purpose of the DEPRECATED status. The "not used anymore" mean not used in the portstree (ie no more depended on). If someone really needs it, he can: 1- install it by hand 2- maintain the port 3- just come up when someone deprecate it saying please undeprecate I really need it. 4- they should be a lot more options. I has been deprecated and removed just because upstream don't maintain it, no one looks at the "maybe" security problem if any etc. Of course it could have been a mistake to remove this one in particular, in that case sorry about that. Concerning the fact that it is "maintained" by ports@, if it would really be the case why it is still in the tree while it depends on libxml1 for which in about 5s I find a security issue: http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2011-1944 which hasn't been reported and hasn't been fixed at all, which means librsvg1 is also vulnerable. the problem is that those ports abandonned upstream are not really maintain anymore, and can lead to a real security problem. note that I don't know yet how the libxml1 vulnerability can have an impact on librsvg, this is just a 5s example. regards, Bapt pgp7brhe93V32.pgp Description: PGP signature
Recent ports removal
Hi! I noticed the following in the commit log: % % Modified files: %.MOVED %develMakefile %graphics Makefile % Removed files: %devel/soup Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist %devel/soup/files patch-Makefile.in patch-configure % patch-docs::reference::Makefile.in % patch-soup-0.7.11-gcc41 % patch-src_libsoup_soup-message.c % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-soap-memory.c % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-soap-parse.c % patch-src_libwsdl_wsdl-typecodes.c %graphics/clutter-qt Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist %graphics/librsvg Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist %graphics/librsvg/files patch-Makefile.in patch-configure % patch-librsvg-config.in patch-rsvg-ft.c % patch-test-ft-gtk.c patch-test-ft.c %graphics/p5-clutter Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist % Log: % 2011-11-06 devel/soup: Unmaintain, use devel/libsoup % 2011-11-06 graphics/clutter-qt: upstream distfile and doesn't build, and %doesn't seem to be developed anymore % 2011-11-06 graphics/p5-clutter: upstream distfile disappeard, and doesn't seem to be developed anymore % 2011-11-06 graphics/librsvg: unmaintained and not used anymore I just cannot get the commit message. librsvg -- not used by whom? Personally, I used it in one of my older projects (~ 10 years old) which I don't plan to rework to use rsvg2/gtk2 because it doesn't make sense for it. So how do I use my project now on FreeBSD? It's also a lie that it's not maintained, it's maintained by ports@ mailing list and the community. So please, restore it. The same also probably goes for other ports, but I don't have enough details to comment. Thanks! -- Stanislav Sedov ST4096-RIPE () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments ___ 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"
Re: recent ports removal
On 09/30/2011 11:05, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: > Doug Barton wrote on 30.09.2011 22:04: >> On 09/30/2011 02:54, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: >>> Doug Barton wrote on 30.09.2011 13:50: On 09/30/2011 02:40, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: > Hi, Doug. > > You just removed www/pyblosxom. But we have a pr, that update it to > latest (not-vulnerable) version: http://bugs.freebsd.org/160682. Julien took that PR, when he's ready to do the update he can pull the files out of the Attic. Doug >>> >>> Ok, but as far i recall, there in ports@ was sounded a policy like "we >>> do not remove the ports with open pr's on them". >> >> I think you misunderstand what "remove" means in this context. :) Or >> perhaps you've never worked with a version control system ... It's > > [just for thrulz] > Yes, it's my second day around the computer system. > [/just for thrulz] I meant no offense. I don't know you, so I have no idea what your experience is or isn't. :) > I understand that it can be restored in one click, but what the point to > remove it in first place if it known that someone already working on it > and will undelete it in near time? Because if, for whatever reason, Julien decides not to update it then removing it on schedule is the safest course of action. > As far i understand it makes commiter's life little a bit harder No, it really, REALLY doesn't. Seriously. > and most important - it confuses the > users, who actually using this ports. Which is more confusing to users: 1. Port is scheduled for removal, never gets updated, never gets removed. 2. Port that they cannot install anyway disappears for a short time, then reappears in a usable, non-vulnerable state? Also, please keep in mind that nothing depends on the ports that I removed, so at worst we're talking a minor inconvenience for someone who already has the port installed. > Ok, actually i'm asking all this questions in first place because your > action on pyblosxom did not conform with this sentence by bapt@: > > """ >> How can ports be removed if the solutions for them is in gnats? >> > > They won't before deleting ports, we always check gnats, if a PR exists > then we leave the ports so that the PR can be committed > """ > > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-September/069998.html > > So i'm just curious what is the agreed policy about such ports? Please > don't get me wrong. Insert the word "permanently" in front of "deleting" in that sentence, and I think you'll get the right idea. hth, Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ 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"
Re: recent ports removal
Doug Barton wrote on 30.09.2011 22:04: On 09/30/2011 02:54, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: Doug Barton wrote on 30.09.2011 13:50: On 09/30/2011 02:40, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: Hi, Doug. You just removed www/pyblosxom. But we have a pr, that update it to latest (not-vulnerable) version: http://bugs.freebsd.org/160682. Julien took that PR, when he's ready to do the update he can pull the files out of the Attic. Doug Ok, but as far i recall, there in ports@ was sounded a policy like "we do not remove the ports with open pr's on them". I think you misunderstand what "remove" means in this context. :) Or perhaps you've never worked with a version control system ... It's [just for thrulz] Yes, it's my second day around the computer system. [/just for thrulz] honestly hard for me to understand why it's hard for people to understand this concept. When Julien is ready to do his work all he has to do is type 'cvs co -D 2011-09-29 ports/www/pyblosxom ports/www/Makefile' and then do his thing. Because a port has been "removed" today is completely irrelevant to the possibility that it will come back in a non-vulnerable form tomorrow. I understand that it can be restored in one click, but what the point to remove it in first place if it known that someone already working on it and will undelete it in near time? As far i understand it makes commiter's life little a bit harder and most important - it confuses the users, who actually using this ports. Ok, actually i'm asking all this questions in first place because your action on pyblosxom did not conform with this sentence by bapt@: """ > How can ports be removed if the solutions for them is in gnats? > They won't before deleting ports, we always check gnats, if a PR exists then we leave the ports so that the PR can be committed """ http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/2011-September/069998.html So i'm just curious what is the agreed policy about such ports? Please don't get me wrong. [...] hth, Doug -- Regards, Ruslan Tinderboxing kills... the drives. ___ 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"
Re: recent ports removal
On 09/30/2011 02:54, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: > Doug Barton wrote on 30.09.2011 13:50: >> On 09/30/2011 02:40, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: >>> Hi, Doug. >>> >>> You just removed www/pyblosxom. But we have a pr, that update it to >>> latest (not-vulnerable) version: http://bugs.freebsd.org/160682. >> >> Julien took that PR, when he's ready to do the update he can pull the >> files out of the Attic. >> >> >> Doug > > Ok, but as far i recall, there in ports@ was sounded a policy like "we > do not remove the ports with open pr's on them". I think you misunderstand what "remove" means in this context. :) Or perhaps you've never worked with a version control system ... It's honestly hard for me to understand why it's hard for people to understand this concept. When Julien is ready to do his work all he has to do is type 'cvs co -D 2011-09-29 ports/www/pyblosxom ports/www/Makefile' and then do his thing. Because a port has been "removed" today is completely irrelevant to the possibility that it will come back in a non-vulnerable form tomorrow. Meanwhile, at one point in the past I did do a PR check for most if not all of the ports that I removed, and I have committed several updates from maintainers of ports that I had marked FORBIDDEN/DEPRECATED. In this case because Julien took that PR I assume that he has some sort of special knowledge/interest in the port, and is in the best position to deal with it, so I am deferring to his judgement. In the meantime removing it on schedule is the safest course of action. hth, Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ 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"
Re: recent ports removal
Doug Barton wrote on 30.09.2011 13:50: On 09/30/2011 02:40, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: Hi, Doug. You just removed www/pyblosxom. But we have a pr, that update it to latest (not-vulnerable) version: http://bugs.freebsd.org/160682. Julien took that PR, when he's ready to do the update he can pull the files out of the Attic. Doug Ok, but as far i recall, there in ports@ was sounded a policy like "we do not remove the ports with open pr's on them". -- Regards, Ruslan Tinderboxing kills... the drives. ___ 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"
Re: recent ports removal
On 09/30/2011 02:40, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote: > Hi, Doug. > > You just removed www/pyblosxom. But we have a pr, that update it to > latest (not-vulnerable) version: http://bugs.freebsd.org/160682. Julien took that PR, when he's ready to do the update he can pull the files out of the Attic. Doug -- Nothin' ever doesn't change, but nothin' changes much. -- OK Go Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/ ___ 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"
recent ports removal
Hi, Doug. You just removed www/pyblosxom. But we have a pr, that update it to latest (not-vulnerable) version: http://bugs.freebsd.org/160682. Please revert. -- Regards, Ruslan Tinderboxing kills... the drives. ___ 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"