On 2026-10-26 08:32, Mark Millard wrote:
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.
There's nothing to stop anyone whom uses the port from claiming MAINTAINER and submitting a patch to fix it. They needn't already be a maintainer. The only problem I see here is that is that the standard procedure wasn't followed; Mark port broken --> give it a expires/depreciation date. If nobody steps up, remove it on depreciation date. @anyone whom wants to keep this port; grab and reverse the commit patch. Apply it to a fresh ports tree. Add and ormodify patches as required to fix the port. Add yourself as MAINTAINER. Generate
a patch. Submit it to Bugzilla. Done. @daniel You short-circuited the process. You've been doing this long enough to know better.
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.
--Chris
0xE512722F.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
