Tomoaki AOKI wrote in <[email protected]>: > Maintainers are natural human. So situations like below can > always happen. > > *The maintainer was urgently taken to hospital with some reason > like traffic accident and kept 6 months without Internet access. > > *Luckily back to home and see the maintainer's ports is/are > removed without marking as BROKEN, then marked DEPRECATED. > > How the maintainer feels?
if a maintainer is urgently taken to hospital for five months and cannot maintain their port, of course i feel empathy for them as a person. we can hope that in the mean time, someone else will step up and maintain the port. but this does not change the mechanical/policy decisions. if a port is unmaintained, it doesn't matter why it's unmaintained. if no one else steps up to maintain the port, and the port is removed, the previous maintainer upon returning home may recurrect the port and become the maintainer against, since the entire history of the port is available in the Git history. > > if people are really using this port, they would have noticed that it > > cannot be built, and they would have fixed it -- if they cared. > > > > clearly these theoretical users do not actually exist. > > The first post by Harry should be indicating the fact. Isn't it? if so, this was not clear to me. i thought Harry is objecting on behalf of theoretical users. > But non-maintainer users may lock the pkg (if they know it's > possible and how-to) if pkg(8) attempt to delete it as there's > no built pkg in the repo and forget about it unless already-installed > one still work for them. They unlikely to "officially" report. okay, but this doesn't prevent us removing the port. the effect is the same either way: the port does not appear in built package tree.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
