On 2026-10-26 11:09, Daniel Engberg wrote:
On 2026-10-26 18:51, Chris wrote:Read up, you're wrong and a maintainer actually needs to (as the title implies) maintain. Additionally it doesn't make any sense to add software that's about oneOn 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 or modify patches as required to fix the port. Add yourself as MAINTAINER. Generatea 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.--Chrisyear behind and unsupported upstream so it needs to be updated too.
I performed due diligence. While the (currently listed) maintainer failed to keep the port functional. You failed to mark it broken, adding an expires date. In the end it all seems the same. But having an expires date expresses the urgency any would-be maintainer may need to get "off the fence" and get to work producing a patch to make
this a valid port again.As to unsupported; While the gtk/gnome version is unsupported. Upstream has a QT
version that *is* supported.On an aside; you'll be happy to know I'll be culling my ports list this week of many ports I now consider unworthy of maintaining. As they're too niche to be of any real value. :)
Best regards, Daniel
--Chris
0xE512722F.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
