From nobody Sat Mar 16 01:48:30 2024 X-Original-To: ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TxPD4599Bz5DQvp for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:48:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from void@f-m.fm) Received: from fout7-smtp.messagingengine.com (fout7-smtp.messagingengine.com [103.168.172.150]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TxPD370Zqz4ln5 for ; Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:48:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from void@f-m.fm) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=f-m.fm header.s=fm1 header.b=EifuooBR; dkim=pass header.d=messagingengine.com header.s=fm1 header.b=C5oWTnP4; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=f-m.fm; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of void@f-m.fm designates 103.168.172.150 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=void@f-m.fm Received: from compute6.internal (compute6.nyi.internal [10.202.2.47]) by mailfout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83C4713800C9 for ; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:48:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from imap46 ([10.202.2.96]) by compute6.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:48:50 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=f-m.fm; h=cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1710553730; x=1710640130; bh=uohEDzer9K lzQdrhDuFnJkL1U1zS6S46/e7W9iInIDA=; b=EifuooBROfM4Zg6qyw1etF9pCG Jd1B89OlOlJIyQs4f6UZt2aoITCM+ybiFev6OyxGuYM+M1iOGB6gLrj5bSx6IUwJ pFwAwvF9UsG9O2a1higwr8t0ijUffPoOHFy3XwMBkeT4xN6ZNjoCOAQ7+6dBwbV0 43Phr6at2mt+o/AM+WEMQvSssjBJ2og60yOm9mV2Uq0lVNpn9mnK8XG+g6nHvk3I 3Rw056LPCEDdYRSScdsoBof9qUJpnujUV/ElBqBQLhb/KR26JkLORlj2wdZ1IaL+ DbEPGXR6MzKNnFNA73wVDIeJwzoG3LnPwnmqDSpLy8tbfwtmuDY4VWB07Dqg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm1; t=1710553730; x=1710640130; bh=uohEDzer9KlzQdrhDuFnJkL1U1zS 6S46/e7W9iInIDA=; b=C5oWTnP4NZRByH+pgRB1o5CJ9rczNL894RjEJYUz/rFD ZbUdXHNmDjEqPMSsX35Rs0/hqjm4ApEA6MrgJapLCi/5ZlvH757bMkR9KQT6tgnN XGYcHXAwn8d3rmUiBVCNghN3BbS/NZwoBM7HyBqtofbyhRyculP5iyaX+JDeBXhl sWTN0xeHOi+7ZF+qPdT/N0LjLhR4zb2Uf3Nh/mMZr2fYV8u8O9O+vM1lDNg3/4pU ZkJdMdOM+BiNL7ByUzuijTA1Jaifj/FvaUBMYPiDs4vF/ll17GtTN/sk6UIXvYhZ wI97G4VZt809GLpcEyOc3AirVABgAOhu3oxxl2qOHw== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrkedtgdefkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtre dtreertdenucfhrhhomhepvhhoihguuceovhhoihgusehfqdhmrdhfmheqnecuggftrfgr thhtvghrnhepieetvdeuhedthedtvdfhuefhveehvdeiledvieffheevleehgeefudelje dukedvnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomhep vhhoihgusehfqdhmrdhfmh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i2541463c:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 4B22C2A20090; Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:48:50 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-300-gdee1775a43-fm-20240315.001-gdee1775a List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <2a868d2a-649e-4b76-870d-2cd8cfeb4f7d@app.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: <2cfb2038d956813eefb068a8f61e1970@mail.infomaniak.com> References: <7a7501f71442d27f6d8c1c0a16f247c1@mail.infomaniak.com> <7fd610fa25ffb9a4348aaadf7459a689@mail.infomaniak.com> <20240315072753.46ffa39e1bbb2e0996099cdf@dec.sakura.ne.jp> <2cfb2038d956813eefb068a8f61e1970@mail.infomaniak.com> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:48:30 +0000 From: void To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proposed ports deprecation and removal policy Content-Type: text/plain X-Spamd-Bar: --- X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.78 / 15.00]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.69)[-0.689]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[f-m.fm,none]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[f-m.fm:s=fm1,messagingengine.com:s=fm1]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:103.168.172.128/27]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[103.168.172.150:from]; XM_UA_NO_VERSION(0.01)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:209242, ipnet:103.168.172.0/24, country:US]; DWL_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[messagingengine.com:dkim]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[f-m.fm]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[f-m.fm]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MLMMJ_DEST(0.00)[ports@freebsd.org]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[ports@freebsd.org]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[f-m.fm:+,messagingengine.com:+] X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4TxPD370Zqz4ln5 On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, at 22:59, Daniel Engberg wrote: > Since we've moved to git perhaps another option might be to create a separate > repo (possibly via submodules) with less restricive polices and have > that as an "add-on" for the official tree without the ports team's and > committers's involvement, a bit like "you're on your own" approach? 100% agree with this. Stuff with an active maintainer: keep in the official tree. Stuff without, or stuff that depends on stuff without - into the 'unsupported' tree. Some distros (notably Debian) do this. It's 2024 not 1994 and most computers are connected to the internet either directly or indirectly. I'd argue there is no place in the official tree for poorly/non-maintained ports. I imagine having such a system would markedly decrease the maintenance burden of those responsible for the port infrastructure. As a user of ports (a dev only in the sense of reporting issues if one can be a dev in that sense) i feel it would be better to *not have a port at all in the official tree* than to have one which is not maintained and possibly or probably vulnerable. Remember that not all vulns make it into the vulxml. Having different trees would help new and older users alike to trust ports, and would add to transparency of freebsd generally. just my $0.02