Am 23.05.2011 04:54, schrieb Mikhail T.: > For the (more explicit) record, objects on ports@ were loud and > substantiated: the death of databases/db2 was uncalled for, in my > opinion -- the port was not broken. Its gratuitous removal resulted in > the death of these two ports, which were also not broken before...
Mikhail, In your particular case, you as the maintainer remained silent on the relevant PR although Erwin and I have pointed you to it on March 21st and your ports were broken since the db2 removal in April. Furthermore, you stated that you as the maintainer won't touch the software just because it is old. It was broken since the db2 removal in April, still you chose not to do anything technical. So, you proved that the port wasn't maintained properly, and that justified its removal. And even though we don't need another reason, I'll provide you with one: Also note the quote from tcl-neo's pkg-descr: "The port is built without the LDAP support. Our port of OpenLDAP2 uses DB3, and linking both DB2 and DB3 into the same executable is too ugly. Some day, Neo will be updated to use DB3, and we will all rejoice." A decade on, OpenLDAP2 wants BerkeleyDB 4.6, but Neo hasn't followed suit. Conclusion: neowebscript is not only unmaintained in ports, but also unmaintained upstream. I do concur with Wesley Shields and Eitan Adler that we don't need unmaintained software in the ports tree, and certainly not for network server packages. According to established and documented practice, the ports are now gone. Good riddance. Best regards, Matthias _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
