Removed ports - looking from the bench
I've seen many requests of late, for ports that are no longer in active development, abandoned etc but still working, but they've been removed from ports. here's an idea, I don't know if this has been discussed before. It requires work of course. But doesn't require a person to know how to develop, which is the biggest issue for people who use ports but don't know how to make a fix to keep it active. When a port is removed, it'll be compressed and put as a single download file. this way the patch information isn't lost and it'll be easier for someone to build said package. Of course there'll be complications, this is where a disclaimer comes in (no support, you are on your own). As I see it, the work required, after the initial setup, is when a port is marked for deletion is to pack it, upload it, and add a comment as last known working (FBSD) version. It sounds easier than probable will be The package could then be deleted when it survives 2 major FBSD versions. I know this will be 2 databases need maintaining, but look at the good aspects. * Ports will be cleaned of old/(almost) unused stuff * People will still have a chance to use an old application I could be wrong but I don't think that it requires a lot to maintain, just a few hours a month. Some major things to discuss about this is: Hosting: will freebsd.org / mirrors lend space/bandwidth to this ? Initial setup: package should be download-able using fetch, perhaps a nice web interface with descriptions of the package. By definition of package I mean the files in ports excluding the source code compressed, so you basically could extract said package into ports and use it as it never was removed. If there's enough backup for this project, I wouldn't mind taking on the job, but for it to get most the success it'll need help from the port committers. Cheers Carsten ___ 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
The way that the FreeBSD project handles deleted ports is to leave them in the CVS repository, where they are easily available to everyone who would like to access them. However I think that your idea is interesting, and I'd love to see the people who are deeply concerned about deleted ports pursue it as an independent project. If they do, I will personally put a reference to it in the Handbook. :) Doug On 09/10/2011 01:08, Carsten Jensen wrote: > I've seen many requests of late, for ports that are no longer in > active development, abandoned etc but still working, but they've been > removed from ports. > > here's an idea, I don't know if this has been discussed before. It > requires work of course. But doesn't require a person to know how to > develop, which is the biggest issue for people who use ports but > don't know how to make a fix to keep it active. > > When a port is removed, it'll be compressed and put as a single > download file. this way the patch information isn't lost and it'll be > easier for someone to build said package. Of course there'll be > complications, this is where a disclaimer comes in (no support, you > are on your own). > > As I see it, the work required, after the initial setup, is when a > port is marked for deletion is to pack it, upload it, and add a > comment as last known working (FBSD) version. It sounds easier than > probable will be > > The package could then be deleted when it survives 2 major FBSD > versions. > > I know this will be 2 databases need maintaining, but look at the > good aspects. > * Ports will be cleaned of old/(almost) unused stuff > * People will still have a chance to use an old application > > I could be wrong but I don't think that it requires a lot to > maintain, just a few hours a month. > > Some major things to discuss about this is: Hosting: will freebsd.org > / mirrors lend space/bandwidth to this ? Initial setup: package > should be download-able using fetch, perhaps a nice web interface > with descriptions of the package. > > > By definition of package I mean the files in ports excluding the > source code compressed, so you basically could extract said package > into ports and use it as it never was removed. > > If there's enough backup for this project, I wouldn't mind taking on > the job, but for it to get most the success it'll need help from the > port committers. > > > Cheers Carsten > > > > > > > > ___ > 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" > -- 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On 10 September 2011 09:40, Doug Barton wrote: > The way that the FreeBSD project handles deleted ports is to leave them > in the CVS repository, where they are easily available to everyone who > would like to access them. > > However I think that your idea is interesting, and I'd love to see the > people who are deeply concerned about deleted ports pursue it as an > independent project. If they do, I will personally put a reference to it > in the Handbook. :) > > > Doug I also don't think this is a terrible idea, but perhaps we could just put a little section about Resurrecting dead ports with a quick cvs tutorial into the Porter's Handbook? Chris > On 09/10/2011 01:08, Carsten Jensen wrote: >> I've seen many requests of late, for ports that are no longer in >> active development, abandoned etc but still working, but they've been >> removed from ports. >> >> here's an idea, I don't know if this has been discussed before. It >> requires work of course. But doesn't require a person to know how to >> develop, which is the biggest issue for people who use ports but >> don't know how to make a fix to keep it active. >> >> When a port is removed, it'll be compressed and put as a single >> download file. this way the patch information isn't lost and it'll be >> easier for someone to build said package. Of course there'll be >> complications, this is where a disclaimer comes in (no support, you >> are on your own). >> >> As I see it, the work required, after the initial setup, is when a >> port is marked for deletion is to pack it, upload it, and add a >> comment as last known working (FBSD) version. It sounds easier than >> probable will be >> >> The package could then be deleted when it survives 2 major FBSD >> versions. >> >> I know this will be 2 databases need maintaining, but look at the >> good aspects. >> * Ports will be cleaned of old/(almost) unused stuff >> * People will still have a chance to use an old application >> >> I could be wrong but I don't think that it requires a lot to >> maintain, just a few hours a month. >> >> Some major things to discuss about this is: Hosting: will freebsd.org >> / mirrors lend space/bandwidth to this ? Initial setup: package >> should be download-able using fetch, perhaps a nice web interface >> with descriptions of the package. >> >> >> By definition of package I mean the files in ports excluding the >> source code compressed, so you basically could extract said package >> into ports and use it as it never was removed. >> >> If there's enough backup for this project, I wouldn't mind taking on >> the job, but for it to get most the success it'll need help from the >> port committers. >> >> >> Cheers Carsten >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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" >> > > > > -- > > 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" > > ___ 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On Saturday 10 September 2011 10:53:54 Chris Rees wrote: > I also don't think this is a terrible idea, but perhaps we could just > put a little section about Resurrecting dead ports with a quick cvs > tutorial into the Porter's Handbook? why not writing a make target in bsd.port.mk to do it? cvs is in base, after all. something like `make resurrect the/port`... -- Alberto Villa, FreeBSD committer http://people.FreeBSD.org/~avilla Invest in physics -- own a piece of Dirac! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On 10 September 2011 10:46, Alberto Villa wrote: > On Saturday 10 September 2011 10:53:54 Chris Rees wrote: >> I also don't think this is a terrible idea, but perhaps we could just >> put a little section about Resurrecting dead ports with a quick cvs >> tutorial into the Porter's Handbook? > > why not writing a make target in bsd.port.mk to do it? cvs is in base, after > all. something like `make resurrect the/port`... Kinda needs more manual intervention-- one needs to find out from cvsweb how long ago the port was deleted, but it's pretty simple from a maintainer point of view; [crees@zeus]~/workspace/ports/pcvs% pcvs co -D "last week" ports/mail/libspf2-10 cvs checkout: Updating ports/mail/libspf2-10 U ports/mail/libspf2-10/Makefile U ports/mail/libspf2-10/distinfo U ports/mail/libspf2-10/pkg-descr U ports/mail/libspf2-10/pkg-plist Of course, pcvs should be replaced by whatever anoncvs command anyone would care to use, and actually readding the port involves mail/Makefile and MOVED, but the committer dealing with the PR can deal with that. 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
Am 10.09.2011 10:40, schrieb Doug Barton: > The way that the FreeBSD project handles deleted ports is to leave them > in the CVS repository, where they are easily available to everyone who > would like to access them. > > However I think that your idea is interesting, and I'd love to see the > people who are deeply concerned about deleted ports pursue it as an > independent project. If they do, I will personally put a reference to it > in the Handbook. :) I think the question that we can find an easy answer to is see to documenting and possibly providing a script that checks out ports from anoncvs's Attic for them. Along with some documentation explaining typical upgrade chores, like removing shared library versions from the _DEPENDS lines. If it then fails to build, the user knows why we killed the port -- and/or it can serve a starting point for those who try to polish it, and possibly submit. A committer could, after a PR, possibly stuff new submissions in the attic. We're out of responsibility for anything, users can still have it. Fewer questions asked, no CVS skills needed, and a lower barrier for users to get to the work we have done in the past but are no longer carrying forward. I somewhat dislike the idea of keeping a separate repository though, and I want to make installing dead ports harder for users. Collecting all places where relevant documentation is required would take some time, and could be a job up for grabs for non-developers. ___ 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 04:45:02PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > > I want to make installing dead ports harder for users. Why? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpVidnJd8Edb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On 10 September 2011 18:15, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 04:45:02PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: >> >> I want to make installing dead ports harder for users. > > Why? > Someone who wants to install a port that has been deprecated and removed should really have enough skills to check a port out of the Attic at least-- it's one command line. I don't see how much simpler it could get: cvs -d __insert_anoncvs_host_here co -D "day_before_port_was_deleted" ports/category/dead_port 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011, Chris Rees wrote: On 10 September 2011 18:15, Chad Perrin wrote: On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 04:45:02PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: I want to make installing dead ports harder for users. Why? Someone who wants to install a port that has been deprecated and removed should really have enough skills to check a port out of the Attic at least-- it's one command line. I don't see how much simpler it could get: cvs -d __insert_anoncvs_host_here co -D "day_before_port_was_deleted" ports/category/dead_port Finding the values for a (working) anoncvs_host and "day_before_port_was_deleted" are nontrivial. portdowngrade still has the first, but makes the second easy. I've never tried it for bringing back a removed port, though. ___ 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On 10 September 2011 19:39, Warren Block wrote: > On Sat, 10 Sep 2011, Chris Rees wrote: > >> On 10 September 2011 18:15, Chad Perrin wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 04:45:02PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: I want to make installing dead ports harder for users. >>> >>> Why? >>> >> >> Someone who wants to install a port that has been deprecated and >> removed should really have enough skills to check a port out of the >> Attic at least-- it's one command line. I don't see how much simpler >> it could get: >> >> cvs -d __insert_anoncvs_host_here co -D "day_before_port_was_deleted" >> ports/category/dead_port > > Finding the values for a (working) anoncvs_host and > "day_before_port_was_deleted" are nontrivial. portdowngrade still has the > first, but makes the second easy. I've never tried it for bringing back a > removed port, though. Another committer has also suggested looking on cvsweb and using 'Download as tarball'. cvsweb can also be used to find the day the port was deleted. 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
I was thinking of this problem, and i believe compressed file is not the solution, since the ports tree infrastructure changes, and that removed ports should be changed also. The second problem is where to store distfiles? Because the majority (nb: not all of them) of removed ports it's a disappeared projects with only distfile hosted on FreeBSD ftp servers. The first problem maybe solved by public github repo (ports graveyard) with liberal write access permissions (since users use it on their own risk anyway) to allow this ports be in good shape. But three problems still remains: a) how to integrate needed port from graveyard into the working tree? (suggest user to manually copy port subdirectory is ugly) b) what to do with port-management tools that know nothing about this guys (or know via MOVED that they were removed some time ago) c) where to store distfiles I treat manual copying ugly, but not impossible, since i supposed that all portname conflicts (caused by repocopies, renames etc) already will be solved in graveyard repo. Just my 0.02 kopeks. Carsten Jensen wrote on 10.09.2011 12:08: I've seen many requests of late, for ports that are no longer in active development, abandoned etc but still working, but they've been removed from ports. here's an idea, I don't know if this has been discussed before. It requires work of course. But doesn't require a person to know how to develop, which is the biggest issue for people who use ports but don't know how to make a fix to keep it active. When a port is removed, it'll be compressed and put as a single download file. this way the patch information isn't lost and it'll be easier for someone to build said package. Of course there'll be complications, this is where a disclaimer comes in (no support, you are on your own). As I see it, the work required, after the initial setup, is when a port is marked for deletion is to pack it, upload it, and add a comment as last known working (FBSD) version. It sounds easier than probable will be The package could then be deleted when it survives 2 major FBSD versions. I know this will be 2 databases need maintaining, but look at the good aspects. * Ports will be cleaned of old/(almost) unused stuff * People will still have a chance to use an old application I could be wrong but I don't think that it requires a lot to maintain, just a few hours a month. Some major things to discuss about this is: Hosting: will freebsd.org / mirrors lend space/bandwidth to this ? Initial setup: package should be download-able using fetch, perhaps a nice web interface with descriptions of the package. By definition of package I mean the files in ports excluding the source code compressed, so you basically could extract said package into ports and use it as it never was removed. If there's enough backup for this project, I wouldn't mind taking on the job, but for it to get most the success it'll need help from the port committers. Cheers Carsten -- 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 06:48:30PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: > On 10 September 2011 18:15, Chad Perrin wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 04:45:02PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > >> > >> I want to make installing dead ports harder for users. > > > > Why? > > Someone who wants to install a port that has been deprecated and > removed should really have enough skills to check a port out of the > Attic at least-- it's one command line. I don't see how much simpler > it could get: This does not answer my question. I find the very concept of wanting to make it harder for a user to install software bizarre. I could understand wanting to achieve some other goal, and suffering the unfortunate case of making it harder to install something, but I do not understand the simple fact of wanting to make life harder for others, unless it is a matter of pure spite. Thus my question: Why? -- Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] pgpjC6TJTJnQb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Removed ports - looking from the bench
Chris Rees wrote: > cvsweb can also be used to find the day the port was deleted. Shouldn't that date be available in the MOVED entry? ___ 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On 11 Sep 2011 00:14, wrote: > > Chris Rees wrote: > > > cvsweb can also be used to find the day the port was deleted. > > Shouldn't that date be available in the MOVED entry? > Hm, indeed, and creative use of read and expr could automate that. 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 01:05:49PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 06:48:30PM +0100, Chris Rees wrote: > > On 10 September 2011 18:15, Chad Perrin wrote: > > > On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 04:45:02PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > > >> > > >> I want to make installing dead ports harder for users. > > > > > > Why? > > > > Someone who wants to install a port that has been deprecated and > > removed should really have enough skills to check a port out of the > > Attic at least-- it's one command line. I don't see how much simpler > > it could get: > > This does not answer my question. I find the very concept of wanting to > make it harder for a user to install software bizarre. I could > understand wanting to achieve some other goal, and suffering the > unfortunate case of making it harder to install something, but I do not > understand the simple fact of wanting to make life harder for others, > unless it is a matter of pure spite. Thus my question: > > Why? Because, in the cases here under discussion, there is somethin "wrong" (for some value of 'wrong') with the software in question. I can't speak for Matthias or Chris, but I think the point here is that (at least some) people don't want to make foot-shooting easier. Someone who can't figure out how to install some software if it takes more than 'portinstall ' almost certainly isn't knowledgeable enough to evaluate the risks of installing buggy, exploitable, or unmaintained software. -- greg byshenk - gbysh...@byshenk.net - Leiden, NL ___ 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Greg Byshenk wrote: On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 01:05:49PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: Why? Because, in the cases here under discussion, there is somethin "wrong" (for some value of 'wrong') with the software in question. I can't speak for Matthias or Chris, but I think the point here is that (at least some) people don't want to make foot-shooting easier. Slippery slope: consider PHP, or Apache, or any MTA. Or newfs. Someone who can't figure out how to install some software if it takes more than 'portinstall ' almost certainly isn't knowledgeable enough to evaluate the risks of installing buggy, exploitable, or unmaintained software. The ports system and FreeBSD in general are not capable of accurately assessing a user's abilities or situation. Informing the user of problems with a port is certainly within the scope of the ports system, or a hypothetical "bring back a removed port" tool. But the responsibility for the installation and use of any software is all on the informed user. The difficulty or ease of bringing back a removed port does not change that. ___ 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On 11 September 2011 15:35, Warren Block wrote: > On Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Greg Byshenk wrote: >> >> On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 01:05:49PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: >>> >>> Why? >> >> Because, in the cases here under discussion, there is somethin "wrong" >> (for some value of 'wrong') with the software in question. I can't >> speak for Matthias or Chris, but I think the point here is that (at >> least some) people don't want to make foot-shooting easier. > > Slippery slope: consider PHP, or Apache, or any MTA. Or newfs. No. PHP, Apache and the MTAs are maintained. Newfs is not buggy. Straw men are the tool of someone who has no more valid points to make, remember that. 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
Just a case study. I was updating today, turns out print/mgv was deleted, so I switched to print/gv. The end. The current port deletion policy needs no change. -- Anton Shterenlikht Room 2.6, Queen's Building Mech Eng Dept Bristol University University Walk, Bristol BS8 1TR, UK Tel: +44 (0)117 331 5944 Fax: +44 (0)117 929 4423 ___ 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Chris Rees wrote: On 11 September 2011 15:35, Warren Block wrote: On Sun, 11 Sep 2011, Greg Byshenk wrote: On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 01:05:49PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote: Why? Because, in the cases here under discussion, there is somethin "wrong" (for some value of 'wrong') with the software in question. I can't speak for Matthias or Chris, but I think the point here is that (at least some) people don't want to make foot-shooting easier. Slippery slope: consider PHP, or Apache, or any MTA. Or newfs. No. PHP, Apache and the MTAs are maintained. Newfs is not buggy. There is "something "wrong" (for some value of 'wrong')" with all of these. newfs will easily overwrite an existing filesystem, for example. That's the slope, the degree to which ports or FreeBSD is going to go to assume ignorance on the part of the user and protect them from themselves. Historical precedent is to inform the user about problems but otherwise assume they know what they're doing. Certainly that's wrong at times, but the other way is the road to "That's dangerous and therefore not allowed." Whether there's overt questioning or security through obscurity, there is no way for the software to take on the responsibilities of the operator. Straw men are the tool of someone who has no more valid points to make, remember that. As is calling a point a straw man rather than addressing it. Probably neither is quite right. Let me suggest a reasonable[1] plan: Modify portdowngrade[2] or create another tool[2] to retrieve removed ports. Show the scary reason for removal before getting files from CVS. The user acknowledges that implicitly by retrieving files, or explicitly by answering an "Are you really, really, ultra-double sure?" question. The existence of this tool satisfies[3] users who want to install old ports. Continue the removal of dead ports as it has been going. If archival of old historical distfiles is needed, that's not really a FreeBSD problem. Start a new project with its own website. Quick, somebody register deadports.org![4] [1] All reasonableness is subjective. [2] Not it! [3] Well, no, some people won't be satisfied, ever. But this would address the problem and might mollify or assuage or assistify. [4] There may be something out there already that can be used. In fact, I think we'd all be surprised if there wasn't.___ 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On 09/11/2011 13:35, Warren Block wrote: > Let me suggest a reasonable[1] plan: No. :) No more talking is necessary. Doing is necessary (or not, doesn't really matter to me at this point). I think Chris is right, a reasonable first step is a Handbook section on "How to recover a port from the CVS Attic." Beyond that if users want to get together and implement Carsten's idea, or another similar service, go for it! But at this point there is no more utility in continuing to talk about this topic. Everyone has said what they have to say, often numerous times, and there has been way more heat than light shed on the topic for some time now (as evidenced by Conrad's recent post where he realized that the issue is not nearly as dire as he thought it was after taking a look at what is actually happening). Time to move on, 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:35:47 -0600 (MDT) Warren Block wrote: > If archival of old historical distfiles is needed, that's not really > a FreeBSD problem. Start a new project with its own website. Quick, > somebody register deadports.org![4] LOL. Love the name! Wonder if it's already taken. :-) -- Conrad J. Sabatier conr...@cox.net ___ 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On 2011-09-12 01:22, Doug Barton wrote: > On 09/11/2011 13:35, Warren Block wrote: >> Let me suggest a reasonable[1] plan: > > No. :) No more talking is necessary. Doing is necessary (or not, > doesn't really matter to me at this point). > > I think Chris is right, a reasonable first step is a Handbook section on > "How to recover a port from the CVS Attic." Beyond that if users want to > get together and implement Carsten's idea, or another similar service, > go for it! > > But at this point there is no more utility in continuing to talk about > this topic. Everyone has said what they have to say, often numerous > times, and there has been way more heat than light shed on the topic for > some time now (as evidenced by Conrad's recent post where he realized > that the issue is not nearly as dire as he thought it was after taking a > look at what is actually happening). > > > Time to move on, > > Doug > I think what needed to be discussed has been said, I wasn't aware that the old ports was stored in CVS. With this option, I too think it's enough to write it in the handbook. Thank you all cheers Carsten ___ 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 14:30:16 +0100 Chris Rees wrote: > On 10 September 2011 10:46, Alberto Villa wrote: > > On Saturday 10 September 2011 10:53:54 Chris Rees wrote: > >> I also don't think this is a terrible idea, but perhaps we could > >> just put a little section about Resurrecting dead ports with a > >> quick cvs tutorial into the Porter's Handbook? > > > > why not writing a make target in bsd.port.mk to do it? cvs is in > > base, after all. something like `make resurrect the/port`... No. b.p.m is complex enough as it is. Dead meat WILL NOT be put into it. -- Ion-Mihai Tetcu ___ 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: Removed ports - looking from the bench
Hi, Reference: > From: Doug Barton > Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 01:40:27 -0700 > Message-id: <4e6b227b.5050...@freebsd.org> Doug Barton wrote: > The way that the FreeBSD project handles deleted ports is to leave them > in the CVS repository, where they are easily available to everyone who > would like to access them. > > However I think that your idea is interesting, and I'd love to see the > people who are deeply concerned about deleted ports pursue it as an > independent project. Id love to see the ports wreckers leave the project. Cheers, Julian -- Julian Stacey, BSD Unix Linux C Sys Eng Consultants Munich http://berklix.com Reply below, not above; Indent with "> "; Cumulative like a play script. Format: Plain text. Not HTML, multipart/alternative, base64, quoted-printable. http://www.softwarefreedomday.org 17 Sept, http://berklix.org/sfd/ 22 Oct. ___ 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"
