Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone
David Demelier wrote:
> 2016-09-29 17:36 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Arnold :
> > Le 29/09/2016 à 17:03, Christian Weisgerber a écrit :
> >> On 2016-09-14, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> >>
> >>> Google Code has been deprecated[1] since March 2015, and read-only since
> >>> August 2015, giving time to software developers to move their
> >>> development some place else. All the distribution files that still use
> >>> solely googlecode.com as their source have been marked BROKEN today in
> >>> r422140[2], as they are not fetchable.
> >>>
> >>> Most software have moved to some other place (mostly on github), all you
> >>> have to do is figure out where and update your ports accordingly.
> >> Or you can simply replace
> >>
> >> ${PROJECT}.googlecode.com/files/
> >>
> >> with
> >>
> >> https://storage.googleapis.com/google-code-archive-downloads/v2/code.google.com/${PROJECT}/
> >>
> >> which could have trivially been done in bsd.sites.mk.
> >>
> >
> > No you cannot.
> >
> > Before marking all the ports BROKEN, I started by changing the
> > MASTER_SITE_GOOGLE_CODE entry to make things fetchable again. The
> > problem with that approach is that it is just hiding the fact that the
> > software have not been updated for more than a year and will never be
> > again. The goal of marking all those ports broken is that people will go
> > and look for where the software went after google code, so that it gets
> > updated when new releases go out.
> >
> > If the software has not been moved to some other place, (it takes about
> > 30 seconds to click the automatic migration to github thing, and it is
> > usually done within the hour,) since march 2015, it is most likely
> > abandoned and should not be kept in the ports tree.
> >
>
> As many have pointed out here, abandoned does not mean it's not usable
> anymore. There are dozen of ports or software not maintained anymore
> and still work because they do not require maintenance.
>
> Marking as broken is a bit hurried IMHO. We should provide a longer
> expiration date by keeping distfiles to our FreeBSD mirrors for a
> while until the upstream moves to somewhere else. Of course, we should
> also bulk mail the maintainer to tell that the port will expire and
> distfiles removed at the time.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Demelier David
BROKEN was useful when introduced, but is too crude, needs improving.
Setting BROKEN= when merely distfile is not at URLs is not true,
it's not broken & will make if distfile is in local distfiles/.
BROKEN is itself part Broken, a liability, as once someone sets it,
it encourages others to later delete working ports.
BROKEN needs to be improved/ split.
FreeBSD should seek to _automatically_ encourage those who still have a
distfile in local distfiles/ to contribute it back to Internet.
eg create a new assert NO_DISTFILE=true that does something approx like
launch in a subshell code below, called with a - prepended to Makefile line,
so it does not break the make of next port entry from SUBDIR +=
.if !defined(DISTFILES_MISSING_CHECK_ONLY_SILENTLY)
echo "Distfile[s] lost from Internet, Checking if you have them localy."
.endif
make fetch # Not checksum, cos even wrong checksums can sometimes work.
echo "Distfile[s] lost from Internet, You still have, Please give a copy to:"
echo "`grep MAINTAINER Makefile` and or po...@freebsd.org"
make checksum
echo "Distfile[s] even have right checksums! Definately give us a copy!"
echo "`pwd` has Distfile[s] lost from Internet, Please give FreeBSD a copy!" \
| mail `whoami`
Do Not turn whole block of by default as noisey, cos we need it to
run by default, so people with local distfiles see it, & return distfiles
Above is a crude. I could improve & create a patch for bsd.port.mk
but as people may likely suggest improvements + its guarded by
FreeBSD_MAINTAINER= port...@freebsd.org
better that they do it ?.
Cheers,
Julian
--
Julian Stacey, BSD Linux Unix Sys Eng Consultant Munich
Reply below, Prefix '> '. Plain text, No .doc, base64, HTML, quoted-printable.
http://berklix.eu/brexit/#stolen_votes
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone
Am 01.10.2016 um 10:03 schrieb Grzegorz Junka: > The fact that some source is hosted at a provider that doesn't close > their services, like Google does (aka GitHub), doesn't make it > "maintained". Is that your definition of "maintained", that the "the > code could be updated if needed"? If yes, then I am happy to upload > all "unmaintained" sources to my GitHub account where you can fork the > repository for free and update "if needed". I don't see that Peter was suggesting that holding the abandonware from Google Code Archives makes it maintained per se (because in the archives, they cannot) - but there are two aspects of being maintained: the upstream maintainer, and the FreeBSD port. Be sure not to talk past each other. I will suggest that the author's activity in the software's surroundings (support mailing lists, web site, forums, ...) should also be considered. Matthias ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone
On 30/09/2016 23:59, Peter Jeremy wrote: On 2016-Sep-29 16:33:12 -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote: Mathieu Arnold: If the software has not been moved to some other place, (it takes about 30 seconds to click the automatic migration to github thing, and it is usually done within the hour,) since march 2015, it is most likely abandoned and should not be kept in the ports tree. That seems a very reasonable policy. Unmaintained software is a danger to the Internet community as a whole and if, after 18 months, a "maintainer" hasn't bothered to take action to move the software to somewhere where it can be supported then it rates as "unmaintained". In the past, if the upstream was gone and the maintainer judged the software still useful (at their discretion, not based on a cut-off date), they would even fall back to providing the distfile at people.freebsd.org. The maintainer is still free to do so. "Maintainership" includes responding to changes within a reasonable period (hence "maintainer timeout"). This was simply a terrible idea and I would hope that the ports team would clearly so state and back out the "BROKEN" from those ports. As others are pointing out, lot of very old and stable code has gone over a year without updating. I think globally marking all ports that fetch from code.google.com as BROKEN is an excellent idea. There's a massive difference between "old and stable" and "unmaintained". The latter means that no-one cares if the code has security vulnerabilities. Just because code is "old and stable" doesn't mean the code is completely bug-free and a reasonable maintainer would take steps to ensure that the code could be updated if needed. One case of import to me was mp4v2, a library for making MP4v2 formatted ... source library for version 2 of the MP4 spec. Yet, because it had Google Code as it's repo and had not been updated in just over a year, BROKEN. The last commit to mp4v2 in code.google.com was 2015-Jan-06 - nearly 21 months ago. (That has now been fixed sue to several people yelling loudly about its import. That is an issue you should take up with the port's maintainer. I am sure that ports contains many old, buggy, insecure ports that should go away, but a standard of "over year without a commit" should not be a metric for determining what goes away. IMO, "over 18 months without a commit and not able to be updated if required" seems a quite reasonable metric for deeming code "abandonware". The fact that some source is hosted at a provider that doesn't close their services, like Google does (aka GitHub), doesn't make it "maintained". Is that your definition of "maintained", that the "the code could be updated if needed"? If yes, then I am happy to upload all "unmaintained" sources to my GitHub account where you can fork the repository for free and update "if needed". Grzegorz ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone
On 2016-Sep-29 16:33:12 -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: >On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Christian Weisgerber >wrote: > >> Mathieu Arnold: >> >> > If the software has not been moved to some other place, (it takes about >> > 30 seconds to click the automatic migration to github thing, and it is >> > usually done within the hour,) since march 2015, it is most likely >> > abandoned and should not be kept in the ports tree. That seems a very reasonable policy. Unmaintained software is a danger to the Internet community as a whole and if, after 18 months, a "maintainer" hasn't bothered to take action to move the software to somewhere where it can be supported then it rates as "unmaintained". >> In the past, if the upstream was gone and the maintainer judged the >> software still useful (at their discretion, not based on a cut-off >> date), they would even fall back to providing the distfile at >> people.freebsd.org. The maintainer is still free to do so. "Maintainership" includes responding to changes within a reasonable period (hence "maintainer timeout"). >This was simply a terrible idea and I would hope that the ports team would >clearly so state and back out the "BROKEN" from those ports. As others are >pointing out, lot of very old and stable code has gone over a year without >updating. I think globally marking all ports that fetch from code.google.com as BROKEN is an excellent idea. There's a massive difference between "old and stable" and "unmaintained". The latter means that no-one cares if the code has security vulnerabilities. Just because code is "old and stable" doesn't mean the code is completely bug-free and a reasonable maintainer would take steps to ensure that the code could be updated if needed. >One case of import to me was mp4v2, a library for making MP4v2 formatted ... >source library for version 2 of the MP4 spec. Yet, because it had Google >Code as it's repo and had not been updated in just over a year, BROKEN. The last commit to mp4v2 in code.google.com was 2015-Jan-06 - nearly 21 months ago. >(That has now been fixed sue to several people yelling loudly about its >import. That is an issue you should take up with the port's maintainer. >I am sure that ports contains many old, buggy, insecure ports that should >go away, but a standard of "over year without a commit" should not be a >metric for determining what goes away. IMO, "over 18 months without a commit and not able to be updated if required" seems a quite reasonable metric for deeming code "abandonware". -- Peter Jeremy signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 02:51:07PM +0200, David Demelier wrote: > We should provide a longer expiration date by keeping distfiles to our > FreeBSD mirrors for a while until the upstream moves to somewhere else. My past experience looking into such things tells me that once this happens the underlying problem will never be fixed. mcl ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone
2016-09-29 17:36 GMT+02:00 Mathieu Arnold :
> Le 29/09/2016 à 17:03, Christian Weisgerber a écrit :
>> On 2016-09-14, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>>
>>> Google Code has been deprecated[1] since March 2015, and read-only since
>>> August 2015, giving time to software developers to move their
>>> development some place else. All the distribution files that still use
>>> solely googlecode.com as their source have been marked BROKEN today in
>>> r422140[2], as they are not fetchable.
>>>
>>> Most software have moved to some other place (mostly on github), all you
>>> have to do is figure out where and update your ports accordingly.
>> Or you can simply replace
>>
>> ${PROJECT}.googlecode.com/files/
>>
>> with
>>
>> https://storage.googleapis.com/google-code-archive-downloads/v2/code.google.com/${PROJECT}/
>>
>> which could have trivially been done in bsd.sites.mk.
>>
>
> No you cannot.
>
> Before marking all the ports BROKEN, I started by changing the
> MASTER_SITE_GOOGLE_CODE entry to make things fetchable again. The
> problem with that approach is that it is just hiding the fact that the
> software have not been updated for more than a year and will never be
> again. The goal of marking all those ports broken is that people will go
> and look for where the software went after google code, so that it gets
> updated when new releases go out.
>
> If the software has not been moved to some other place, (it takes about
> 30 seconds to click the automatic migration to github thing, and it is
> usually done within the hour,) since march 2015, it is most likely
> abandoned and should not be kept in the ports tree.
>
As many have pointed out here, abandoned does not mean it's not usable
anymore. There are dozen of ports or software not maintained anymore
and still work because they do not require maintenance.
Marking as broken is a bit hurried IMHO. We should provide a longer
expiration date by keeping distfiles to our FreeBSD mirrors for a
while until the upstream moves to somewhere else. Of course, we should
also bulk mail the maintainer to tell that the port will expire and
distfiles removed at the time.
Regards,
--
Demelier David
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone
Julian H. Stacey wrote on 09/29/2016 23:10: [...] We probably need a way to find out how often a pkg is downloaded from a repo to understand which ports/pkg are really used in our user base. This helps to decide if a port is really no longer in use. Insufficient test. I never download packages. I always compile. pkg info | wc -l 1216 I keep old distfiles. Occasionaly i've fed lost distfiles back to the net. PS I guess some of us might not mind enabling a switch on some not all of our boxes, if some auto collector robot @freebsd collected stats on ports, driven by some make post-install or post make package Mk/ macro But it should be off by default: privacy issues. There were some attempts, for example bsdstats which can be installed from ports. But it is rarely used and stats are not correct http://bsdstats.org/ports.php To make it useful it should be in base install and On by default - and I understand that many users will be against this. Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone
On 29.09.2016 21:10, Kurt Jaeger wrote: Hi! Christian Weisgerber wrote on 09/29/2016 18:57: Mathieu Arnold: If the software has not been moved to some other place, (it takes about 30 seconds to click the automatic migration to github thing, and it is usually done within the hour,) since march 2015, it is most likely abandoned and should not be kept in the ports tree. That's a bold new policy. In the past, if the upstream was gone and the maintainer judged the software still useful (at their discretion, not based on a cut-off date), they would even fall back to providing the distfile at people.freebsd.org. I don't think it is good to remove ports just because source was not updated for some time. There are ports useful even 10 years after last update. Namely pnm2ppa is really old piece of code. It was removed from ports tree because there was not maintainer. So I must become a maintainer and now the port is alive again. I think there should not be policy to remove ports if they have maintainer or some user using them if only thing which should be done is to change SRC url. I agree, old code does not mean it's useless code. Yes. Like i already said: there is a great bunch of software were the developer is even dead and the software is still useful. The software is feature complete and just runs. We probably need a way to find out how often a pkg is downloaded from a repo to understand which ports/pkg are really used in our user base. This helps to decide if a port is really no longer in use. That would be very misleading. Some people always compile (like myself for example). And if the software is old it is very likely that you install them ones. And another time when you need a new server because your hardware died. Greetings, Torsten ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 04:33:12PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Christian Weisgerber > wrote: > > > Mathieu Arnold: > > > > > If the software has not been moved to some other place, (it takes about > > > 30 seconds to click the automatic migration to github thing, and it is > > > usually done within the hour,) since march 2015, it is most likely > > > abandoned and should not be kept in the ports tree. > > > > That's a bold new policy. > > > > In the past, if the upstream was gone and the maintainer judged the > > software still useful (at their discretion, not based on a cut-off > > date), they would even fall back to providing the distfile at > > people.freebsd.org. > > > > So, will this be enforced? Will somebody go through all distfiles, > > check the time stamps in the tarballs, and mark ports as BROKEN if > > the distfile hasn't been updated since... when exactly? I guess I > > could to that. > > > > -- > > Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de > > > > This was simply a terrible idea and I would hope that the ports team would > clearly so state and back out the "BROKEN" from those ports. As others are > pointing out, lot of very old and stable code has gone over a year without > updating. +1 > One case of import to me was mp4v2, a library for making MP4v2 formatted > files. ucpp is another example. Marked BROKEN. Broke building of libreoffice. Just brilliant. -- Steve ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > Mathieu Arnold: > > > If the software has not been moved to some other place, (it takes about > > 30 seconds to click the automatic migration to github thing, and it is > > usually done within the hour,) since march 2015, it is most likely > > abandoned and should not be kept in the ports tree. > > That's a bold new policy. > > In the past, if the upstream was gone and the maintainer judged the > software still useful (at their discretion, not based on a cut-off > date), they would even fall back to providing the distfile at > people.freebsd.org. > > So, will this be enforced? Will somebody go through all distfiles, > check the time stamps in the tarballs, and mark ports as BROKEN if > the distfile hasn't been updated since... when exactly? I guess I > could to that. > > -- > Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de > This was simply a terrible idea and I would hope that the ports team would clearly so state and back out the "BROKEN" from those ports. As others are pointing out, lot of very old and stable code has gone over a year without updating. One case of import to me was mp4v2, a library for making MP4v2 formatted files. It's not terribly old, though there has been little recent development. The code was move to github, though it is unclear if this was official, whatever that might mean in this context. This is code that I use quite often as a part of faac (audio encoder) and avidemux (simple video editor and format converter). As far as I know, there is no other open source library for version 2 of the MP4 spec. Yet, because it had Google Code as it's repo and had not been updated in just over a year, BROKEN. (That has now been fixed sue to several people yelling loudly about its import. I am sure that ports contains many old, buggy, insecure ports that should go away, but a standard of "over year without a commit" should not be a metric for determining what goes away. -- Kevin Oberman, Part time kid herder and retired Network Engineer E-mail: rkober...@gmail.com PGP Fingerprint: D03FB98AFA78E3B78C1694B318AB39EF1B055683 ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone
Hi, Reference: > From: Kurt Jaeger > Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:10:41 +0200 Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > > > Christian Weisgerber wrote on 09/29/2016 18:57: > > > Mathieu Arnold: > > > > > >> If the software has not been moved to some other place, (it takes about > > >> 30 seconds to click the automatic migration to github thing, and it is > > >> usually done within the hour,) since march 2015, it is most likely > > >> abandoned and should not be kept in the ports tree. > > > > > > That's a bold new policy. > > > > > > In the past, if the upstream was gone and the maintainer judged the > > > software still useful (at their discretion, not based on a cut-off > > > date), they would even fall back to providing the distfile at > > > people.freebsd.org. > > > > I don't think it is good to remove ports just because source was not > > updated for some time. There are ports useful even 10 years after last > > update. Namely pnm2ppa is really old piece of code. It was removed from > > ports tree because there was not maintainer. So I must become a > > maintainer and now the port is alive again. > > I think there should not be policy to remove ports if they have > > maintainer or some user using them if only thing which should be done is > > to change SRC url. > > I agree, old code does not mean it's useless code. Me too. I use loads of old ports, aka stable mature code, not everything needs to be hacked to qualify not to be chopped, some stuff just works :-) > We probably need a way to find out how often a pkg is downloaded > from a repo to understand which ports/pkg are really used in our > user base. This helps to decide if a port is really no longer in use. Insufficient test. I never download packages. I always compile. pkg info | wc -l 1216 I keep old distfiles. Occasionaly i've fed lost distfiles back to the net. PS I guess some of us might not mind enabling a switch on some not all of our boxes, if some auto collector robot @freebsd collected stats on ports, driven by some make post-install or post make package Mk/ macro But it should be off by default: privacy issues. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Linux Unix Sys Eng Consultant Munich Reply below, Prefix '> '. Plain text, No .doc, base64, HTML, quoted-printable. http://berklix.eu/brexit/#stolen_votes ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone
Hi! > Christian Weisgerber wrote on 09/29/2016 18:57: > > Mathieu Arnold: > > > >> If the software has not been moved to some other place, (it takes about > >> 30 seconds to click the automatic migration to github thing, and it is > >> usually done within the hour,) since march 2015, it is most likely > >> abandoned and should not be kept in the ports tree. > > > > That's a bold new policy. > > > > In the past, if the upstream was gone and the maintainer judged the > > software still useful (at their discretion, not based on a cut-off > > date), they would even fall back to providing the distfile at > > people.freebsd.org. > > I don't think it is good to remove ports just because source was not > updated for some time. There are ports useful even 10 years after last > update. Namely pnm2ppa is really old piece of code. It was removed from > ports tree because there was not maintainer. So I must become a > maintainer and now the port is alive again. > I think there should not be policy to remove ports if they have > maintainer or some user using them if only thing which should be done is > to change SRC url. I agree, old code does not mean it's useless code. We probably need a way to find out how often a pkg is downloaded from a repo to understand which ports/pkg are really used in our user base. This helps to decide if a port is really no longer in use. -- p...@opsec.eu+49 171 3101372 4 years to go ! ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone
Christian Weisgerber wrote on 09/29/2016 18:57: Mathieu Arnold: If the software has not been moved to some other place, (it takes about 30 seconds to click the automatic migration to github thing, and it is usually done within the hour,) since march 2015, it is most likely abandoned and should not be kept in the ports tree. That's a bold new policy. In the past, if the upstream was gone and the maintainer judged the software still useful (at their discretion, not based on a cut-off date), they would even fall back to providing the distfile at people.freebsd.org. I don't think it is good to remove ports just because source was not updated for some time. There are ports useful even 10 years after last update. Namely pnm2ppa is really old piece of code. It was removed from ports tree because there was not maintainer. So I must become a maintainer and now the port is alive again. I think there should not be policy to remove ports if they have maintainer or some user using them if only thing which should be done is to change SRC url. Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone
Mathieu Arnold: > If the software has not been moved to some other place, (it takes about > 30 seconds to click the automatic migration to github thing, and it is > usually done within the hour,) since march 2015, it is most likely > abandoned and should not be kept in the ports tree. That's a bold new policy. In the past, if the upstream was gone and the maintainer judged the software still useful (at their discretion, not based on a cut-off date), they would even fall back to providing the distfile at people.freebsd.org. So, will this be enforced? Will somebody go through all distfiles, check the time stamps in the tarballs, and mark ports as BROKEN if the distfile hasn't been updated since... when exactly? I guess I could to that. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de ___ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone
Le 29/09/2016 à 17:03, Christian Weisgerber a écrit :
> On 2016-09-14, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
>
>> Google Code has been deprecated[1] since March 2015, and read-only since
>> August 2015, giving time to software developers to move their
>> development some place else. All the distribution files that still use
>> solely googlecode.com as their source have been marked BROKEN today in
>> r422140[2], as they are not fetchable.
>>
>> Most software have moved to some other place (mostly on github), all you
>> have to do is figure out where and update your ports accordingly.
> Or you can simply replace
>
> ${PROJECT}.googlecode.com/files/
>
> with
>
> https://storage.googleapis.com/google-code-archive-downloads/v2/code.google.com/${PROJECT}/
>
> which could have trivially been done in bsd.sites.mk.
>
No you cannot.
Before marking all the ports BROKEN, I started by changing the
MASTER_SITE_GOOGLE_CODE entry to make things fetchable again. The
problem with that approach is that it is just hiding the fact that the
software have not been updated for more than a year and will never be
again. The goal of marking all those ports broken is that people will go
and look for where the software went after google code, so that it gets
updated when new releases go out.
If the software has not been moved to some other place, (it takes about
30 seconds to click the automatic migration to github thing, and it is
usually done within the hour,) since march 2015, it is most likely
abandoned and should not be kept in the ports tree.
--
Mathieu Arnold
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone
On 2016-09-14, Mathieu Arnold wrote:
> Google Code has been deprecated[1] since March 2015, and read-only since
> August 2015, giving time to software developers to move their
> development some place else. All the distribution files that still use
> solely googlecode.com as their source have been marked BROKEN today in
> r422140[2], as they are not fetchable.
>
> Most software have moved to some other place (mostly on github), all you
> have to do is figure out where and update your ports accordingly.
Or you can simply replace
${PROJECT}.googlecode.com/files/
with
https://storage.googleapis.com/google-code-archive-downloads/v2/code.google.com/${PROJECT}/
which could have trivially been done in bsd.sites.mk.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de
___
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Google Code as an upstream is gone
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 10:19:18PM +0200, Mathieu Arnold wrote: > Hello, > > Google Code has been deprecated[1] since March 2015, and read-only since > August 2015, giving time to software developers to move their > development some place else. All the distribution files that still use > solely googlecode.com as their source have been marked BROKEN today in > r422140[2], as they are not fetchable. > > Most software have moved to some other place (mostly on github), all you > have to do is figure out where and update your ports accordingly. > > 1: https://opensource.googleblog.com/2015/03/farewell-to-google-code.html > 2: https://reviews.freebsd.org/rP422140 For the ports that are affected, can you please drop a short notice to their maintainers? The phabricator page only shows them when you manually click on "Load File" for every single port. pgpH4PptZlieq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Google Code as an upstream is gone
Hello, Google Code has been deprecated[1] since March 2015, and read-only since August 2015, giving time to software developers to move their development some place else. All the distribution files that still use solely googlecode.com as their source have been marked BROKEN today in r422140[2], as they are not fetchable. Most software have moved to some other place (mostly on github), all you have to do is figure out where and update your ports accordingly. 1: https://opensource.googleblog.com/2015/03/farewell-to-google-code.html 2: https://reviews.freebsd.org/rP422140 -- Mathieu Arnold signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
