svn commit: r422114 - head/misc/fortune_strfile

[John Marino]

On 9/14/2016 07:31, Mark Linimon wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 07:21:08AM -0500, John Marino wrote:
>> I met the requirements of the policy.
>
> IMHO, yes, you have.
>
> But I remember when we discussed the policy, the idea was to prevent
> this number from growing:
>
>   Number of ports with no maintainer: 4814 (18.4%)
>
> Note that that number does not include group-maintained ports (e.g.
> gnome@, perl@).  That's just ports@ per se.
>
> My own opinion is that 4814 is way too many.  And, I don't buy the
> argument that some have made that "unmaintained ports are better
> maintained than some maintained ports".
>
> My own personal belief, stated at the time when I was on portmgr,
> was that unmaintained ports contributed to bitrot.
>
> Obligatory disclaimer: I am no longer on portmgr.
>

That's all fine but everyone need to take this in context.
1) I'm a maintainer of 70 other ports
2) I frequently commit to literally thousands of other ports
3) This particular part is only used for fortune ports.  It should have 
been done years ago and maintained by one of the fortune port 
maintainers (IMO)
4) After all that, more than half the fortune ports have been marked 
BROKEN because they don't fetch.  So the thing this helper program is 
supporting isn't even maintained.

In context, nobody should be upset about this.  I removed the 
requirement to have a games distribution installed to build very simple 
ports and that was a nice benefit.  If the price is that there's a tiny 
new unmaintained port, you'd pay that price every single day and twice 
on Sunday.

John




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus