Re: Proposed ports deprecation and removal policy

On Sat, 16 Mar 2024, at 10:28, Michael Gmelin wrote:
> Seriously, the “other” tree would rot in no time, this is not practical 
> (it’s also interesting how the discussion moved from ‘ports 
> unmaintained upstream’ to ‘ports without a maintainer’). 

Look at it another way: how come something like it *is* practical 
for other OSes (including distros)?

> If the goal is to have a pure system nobody uses, please go ahead.

The "goal" would be to have a reasonably up-to-date, and as vuln-free
as can be reasonably attained, freebsd system that uses the "maintained"
port tree.

> I (still) think an approach where `pkg audit`warns about unmaintained 
> ports (and ports without an upstream maintainer), maybe even having 
> config options that prevent the installation of such ports - which 
> could be on by default - would be a way to allow people to make 
> informed decisions without removing these ports from the tree.

That's a good idea.
--