Re: Why? git: 6ea8a98a6540 - main - x11/budgie: Remove from tree

[Chris]

On 2026-10-26 11:49, Steve Kargl wrote:

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- c6eff3662...@app.fastmail.com>:

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.

other than "no one", the person who cares can resurrect the port and
maintain it.

it's been broken for five months.  who cares?  if the answer is anything

their own?

If not, it would seem that the thing missing for reinstatement would 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.

(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 someone requesting the reinstatement that also indicates they want to be

and submitting a patch to fix it. They needn't already be a maintainer.

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;

a patch. Submit it to Bugzilla. Done.

@daniel

better.

There's nothing to stop anyone whom uses the port from claiming MAINTAINER The only problem I see here is that is that the standard procedure wasn't 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 You short-circuited the process. You've been doing this long enough to know

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.

this a valid port again.

version that *is* supported.

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 As to unsupported; While the gtk/gnome version is unsupported. Upstream has a QT

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

...

EXPIRATION_DATE=2026-11-30

Thanks, Steve. Hard as I tried. I never saw this. I'll shut up now. :)

--Chris

0xE512722F.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys