FreeBSD ports which are currently scheduled for deletion

[Kurt Jaeger]

Hi!

Matthew Rezny wrote:
[...]
> If you don't like it, then don't do it, but don't stand in the way of anyone 
> else that does. Also, cut the crap. If maintainer is ports@, then what that 
> literally means is the ports community as a whole is maintaining those ports. 

> If they are not maintained by anyone, then the maintainer should be NULL. 

>From my point of view, having a way to express the difference
is a valid open issue. There are many open issues, and time is really scarce.

> Also, I've done the steps of fix, stage, and claim maintership. The issue is 
> "honestly be the maintainer". How can I honestly call myself the maintainer 
> when I can't actually do anything to the port myself.

If you want to change things directly in the ports tree, you have to
become a ports committer. For this, some committer or two need to
be your mentors (I'm still being mentored, so...). All (most?) committers
are very busy, that's the general problem.

> Sure, there's always disagreements, but part of keeping a functioning 
> community depends on minimizing disagreement. I'm not saying
> staging should be dropped, but making it a requirement for commit
> just deters other bugs from getting fixed. "Ooh, I could fix this,
> but then I have to stage it too... meh, fuck it."

That's seldom the real problem. Finding time to fix anything is
the problem, mostly.

> that were not handled, or were handled all the way up to the last step and 
> then forgotten. i.e. ports/188784

@work. Building in poudriere right now.

> > you already have the figures (~4700 ports), but here's a dynamic list:
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~bapt/notstaged.txt

It's already down to 3446 right now.

> I had kept distance from getting involved in the ports side because it always 
> looked like a cesspool. After long enough avoiding it, I made the mistake of 
> stepping in. Knee deep in this shitmess, I have a choice to make.

I agree that there was a lot of change in the ports tree recently.
But: There is a reason for this: The ports tree has to be cleaner
so that it can provide better automatic processes to the users.
It's not easy, but it's getting there.

Please add civility and patches/PRs to the process, this would help
us tremendously. A long rant is sometimes helpful, but if it gets
too angry, it alienates others.

> I can keep 
> throwing patches at PRs and hope somebody might just commit them,
> or I can say screw it all and just fork the ports tree in a public repo.

Provide PRs, send me a Cc: and I can have a look at them.

-- 
pi at opsec.eu            +49 171 3101372                         6 years to go !