Harry Schmalzbauer wrote in <[email protected]>: > On 2026-10-26 15:44, Lexi Winter wrote: > > 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. >[...] > > Is there really an improvement for the ports tree after this removal?
yes: we used to have a port that didn't build. now we don't have a port that doesn't build. the quality of the ports tree has improved. > From a users point of view, I consider almost any removal as loss, not as an > improvement. what did you lose? the port doesn't build. > Somebody put significant efforts into providing this port. someone put a lot of effort into porting 4.3BSD to the Tahoe, but we don't ship that in FreeBSD, because it's obsolete. > Hiding from user visible surface doesn't improve anything imho. no one is hiding anything, anyone can see the Git history. > Further cleanup should require approval by the maintainer imho. what maintainer? the port has been broken for five months. it is clearly not maintained. > If (former) maintainer doesn't respond within a reasonable timeframe > (like 8 weeks maybe) set expiration date (another 4 weeks). it's been five months. that's far longer than your proposed timeline. > People have another chance to notice about it and maybe adopt it. if people are really using this port, they would have noticed that it cannot be built, and they would have fixed it -- if they cared. clearly these theoretical users do not actually exist. > This tiny bureaucracy is justified by the resulting transparency in my > opinion. the real bureaucracy is being unable to improve the ports tree due to objections on behalf of users who don't actually exist.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
