On 2026-10-26 15:39, Dan Langille wrote:
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.
I'm not sure if you don't read or don't understand, it's been marked
broken for month*s.
*https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/?id=d0528bbc1318371bfb9f81b3c1a4e56eeaab6c60
From your own link,
"|BROKEN| is reserved for ports that currently do not compile, install,
deinstall, or run correctly. Use it for ports where the problem is
believed to be *temporary*."
https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/porting-dads/#dads-deprecated
"When it *makes sense to do* so, users can be warned about a pending
port removal with |DEPRECATED| and |EXPIRATION_DATE|."
Best regards,
Daniel
