On 10/26/26 11:43, Daniel Engberg wrote:
On 2026-10-26 19:40, Chris wrote:
On 2026-10-26 11:09, Daniel Engberg wrote:
On 2026-10-26 18:51, Chris wrote:
On 2026-10-26 08:32, Mark Millard wrote:
On 10/26/26 07:44, Lexi Winter wrote:
Dan Langille wrote in <2936739a-9bff-4fd5-9cb6-
[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. 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
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 one
year 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.
Try again, https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/commit/?
id=d0528bbc1318371bfb9f81b3c1a4e56eeaab6c60
(I have no dog in this fight except the long email thread cluttering
my inbox.)
d0528bbc seems to be missing
DEPRECATED= "Port has been broken for 5 months"
EXPIRATION_DATE=2026-11-30
--
steve
