Deprecation campaign

[mato]

Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2011-Apr-26 02:02:02 +0200, martinko<gamato at users.sf.net>  wrote:
>    
>> I understand you want to remove a port if it does not build and there is
>> no one (in long time) to fix it.  However, deprecating because a dist
>> file moved, while port may be perfectly functional, seems a bit too
>> much, imho.
>>      
> For these ports, the port as it stands does not fetch.  Someone needs
> to update the port with the new distfile location - this is the
> responsibility of the port's maintainer.  If a port remains broken for
> an extended period, it indicates that no-one cares about it any longer
> and therefore no-one should miss it if it's deleted.
>
>    
>>   So why would we deny them using the
>> ports if all it takes is publishing the port files somewhere ?  And
>> since FreeBSD has the infrastructure and resources I see no issue in
>> providing parking for such distfiles, especially if we believe they are
>> used by minority of users.  Or is there something I miss here ?
>>      
> Who do you see as responsible for doing this?  Whilst the FreeBSD
> Project has resources for storing/distributing distfiles, it takes
> human effort to verify that the port's license allows the FreeBSD
> Project to host the distfile and to actually copy the distfile.  That
> person also needs to distinguish between the cases:
> a) The port is up-to-date and the distfile has moved
> b) The project (and hence distfile) have been renamed
> c) The port is so out-of-date that the distfie has been removed
>     by the vendor
>
> Whilst the effort required for a single port may not be great, the
> total effort to work through all the ports in this situation would be
> substantial.  This is not the task of the port committers group.
>
> It's up to the port's users to come up with a maintainer - if none of
> a port's users are willing to put in the effort to ensure that the
> port remains usable, why should the FreeBSD Project expend scarce
> resources to offering that port?
>
> If there are ports on the deprecated list that you use, maybe it's
> up to you to step up and maintain them.
>
>    

There are usually many users but only a few are ready to become 
maintainers (for whatever reasons).  So no one stepping up does not 
really mean no one uses a port.  But ok, I'll try to see what I can do 
for ports I might care about..

M.