On Oct 18, 2016, at 2:53 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > I would like to ask once again for thoughts about the following suggestion. > > 1.) Create a new folder/category called "purgatory" (other suggestions > for names welcome)
I'm not in favor of moving ports to such a new category folder. You could add that as a secondary category without needing to move any files around. The question is, why? > 2.) We would put there any ports satisfying some of the following criteria: > - don't build at all > - abandoned upstream > - potentially maintainer upstream, but broken in MacPorts and require > a lot of further work before they are useful again > - apache 1, python < 2.7, python < 3.4, perl < 5.22, postgresql < > (something), ... > > 3.) For the time being I would only create a new folder and move those > ports there, but the idea is to actually stop indexing those ports and > stop building them on the buildbots. (Or perhaps index them, but when > users request them, tell them that the port is in purgatory and point > them to instructions what to do.) This is something that can always be > implement later. Why would you stop indexing them? Why would you have the buildbot stop building them? What would the instructions that you suggest to point the user at say? > 4.) If any users start crying after we have removed perl5.20, they can > get it from the purgatory without playing a detective (but they have > to manually add it to PortIndex). If some project that is being > actively developed upstream, but is badly supported and broken in > MacPorts, users might easily find the existing broken files and fix > them again. > > 5.) Officially those ports would be completely unsupported (but, if > for some reason, some enthusiast really wants to fix a problem in gcc > 1.0, I would not prevent them from doing that). > > I would find it much easier to move the port there than to keep asking > everyone around whether it's ok to remove that port that hasn't been > building for the last 7 years. > > I would like to clear this up ASAP. Because I would want to move the > old Perls there (once I delete it, I will no longer be willing to > resurrect it, but I would be willing to give it that last breath and > put it to "purgatory" now). I would like to point people to something > they can do easily if we remove those old ports, but at the same time > there has been a lot of pressure to actually remove those ports. I > just find it super confusing that we insist in keeping some ancient > software and remove the other. It would be better to have some clearer > policy for the whole macports. What's the harm if I personally wish to continue providing older php ports? If others no longer wish to provide older python ports that's up to them to decide. All software is different; I don't need a unifying MacPorts policy to dictate which software is too old. It's probably reasonable to just delete some obsolete ports, like apache 1, without any intermediate purgatory. I don't think anybody's going to be too upset about that. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
