Re: Proposed ports deprecation and removal policy

15.03.2024 3:37, Daniel Engberg wrote:
> On 2024-03-12T15:15:49.000+01:00, Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> wrote:
>>  12.03.2024 3:24, Daniel Engberg пишет:
>>
>> [skip]
>>
>>
>>>    Another possible option would be to add something to the port's matedata that makes pkg aware and easy notiable
>>>  like using a specific color for portname and related information to signal
>>>  like if it's red it means abandonware and potentially reduced security.
>>  
>> Of course, we need to inform users but not enforce. Tools, not policy.
>>
> Eugene
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Given that we seem to agree on these points in general why should such ports still be kept in the tree?

A port should be kept in the tree until it works and has no known security problems, not imaginable.

> We don't have such tooling available and it wont likely happen anytime soon.
> Because it's convenient for a committer who uses these in a controlled network despite being potentially harmful for others?

"Potentially harmful" is not valid reason to remove a port. Look at vulnerability history of any modern web browser.
We know they are full of security holes. All of them. And will be despite of being supported by developers, it does not matter in fact.
Old software is often much more simple and secure despite of lack of support.

Do not remove ports just due to theorizing.

Eugene