On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 09:43:38 -0800 Cy Schubert <[email protected]> wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>, =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav? > = w > rites: > > Florian Smeets <[email protected]> writes: > > > Ports can be removed immediately if one of the following conditions is me= > > t: > > > > > > - Upstream distfile is no longer available from the original > > > source/mirror (Our and other distcaches e.g. Debian, Gentoo, etc do > > > not count as "available") > > > > Strong disagree, give the maintainer a chance to find an alternate > > mirror or self-host. > > +1 +1 about this point, too. Silly service providers changes their brand and domain, WITH THEIR USERS FORCIBLY INCLUDING. This immediately causes original upstream URI unavailable, even though actual project DOES NOT AT ALL CHANGES. And more importantly, some users dislikes such a domain name policy and switch service provider. Of course, this causes original upstream URI dissappear. > > > > > > - Upstream WWW is unavailable: deprecate, remove after 3 months > > > > That's the opposite of immediate removal > > > > > - BROKEN for more than 6 months > > > > Agree but that's hardly immediate > > > > > - has known vulnerabilities that weren=E2=80=99t addressed in the ports t= > > ree > > > for more than 3 months > > > > Agree but that's hardly immediate > > > > DES > > --=20 > > Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - [email protected] > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Cy Schubert <[email protected]> > FreeBSD UNIX: <[email protected]> Web: https://FreeBSD.org > NTP: <[email protected]> Web: https://nwtime.org > > e^(i*pi)+1=0 -- Tomoaki AOKI <[email protected]>
