On 10/26/26 07:44, Lexi Winter wrote: > Dan Langille wrote in <[email protected]>: >> 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. > > it's been broken for five months. who cares? if the answer is anything > other than "no one", the person who cares can resurrect the port and > maintain it.
(Not that I care about the specific port but I'm curious about the process:) Can a potential maintainer that is not a committer reinstate the port on their own? If not, it would seem that the thing missing for reinstatement would be someone requesting the reinstatement that also indicates they want to be the maintainer. If it does not already have such, I wonder if the policy should have some words about that for long-broken ports that are deleted. > > otherwise, nothing is lost by deleting a broken port. > > we should not let arbitrary rules stand in the way of improving the > ports tree, especially considering the state of ports. -- === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com
