On Mon, Oct 26, 2026, at 10:22, Daniel Engberg wrote: > On 2026-10-26 14:38, Thierry Thomas wrote: >> Le lun. 26 oct. 26 à 12:44:22 +0100, Daniel Engberg <[email protected]> >> écrivait : >> >>>>>> x11/budgie: Remove from tree >>>>>> Broken for more than 5 months in tree without any PRs submitted >>>>>> Removes Budgie desktop and related ports >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to strongly express that I think this is not a proper way to >>>>> manage the FreeBSD port tree in this case (especially in this case, not >>>>> only though...). >>>>> >>>>> To my understanding there's the BROKEN flag available in the ports >>>>> framework, which perfectly matches here and should have been set as a >>>>> first measure. >>>> You are correct. It should not have been removed the way it was. >>>> >>>> It should be put back and marked BROKEN. >>>> >>>>> If for some unknown reason removing other's work makes live easier for >>>>> ports tree people@freeebsd, mark it for removal (deprecate) at the same >>>>> time, before nuking this port. >>>> Agreed. >>>> >>> According to what? >> According to common sense and the respect of the users. >> >> No need of a written policy fot that. > There is a policy, I've already linked to it again since you don't > appear to not be aware. > https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/book/#dads-deprecated > "Permanently broken ports will be removed from the tree entirely."
Also follow the policy here for process for broken/deprecated: https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/porting-dads/#dads-noinstall-variables > It has been broken for more than 5 months, there are no package(s) and > no PR(s) about fixing it or it being missing including quarterly so what > users are you referring to? Additionally as Roland pointed you can fix > it, use old port as base and update it if you're attached to it. Please follow procedure. You are short-cutting the process. First, mark the port broken after one month of it being actually broken. Did you do that? No. A few months later, mark it deprecated. Did you do that? No. With those steps taken, the port will be garbage collected by the usual process. No need for you to delete it like you did. Your approach completely bypasses the bult-in mechanisms for users of a broken port. Maybe they built it and it was working, and did not update, and when they update, it's silently gone. The approach taken is not what we do. So far, multiple people have told you you're doing it wrong. Please revert your changes. -- Dan Langille - with portmgr hat [email protected]
