On Nov 19, 2021, at 15:05, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> Howdy! As things stand, we don't explicitly say much in our rules about
> whether people can remove obsolete ports after a year even without a port
> maintainer's say-so. We also have circumstances where people leave
> "maintainer" lines in ports that have been put into `obsolete`.
>
> I'd like to propose the following rules:
>
> 1. There must always be a comment in a `PortGroup obsolete` Portfile stating
> the date on which the port can be removed. (Ideally we'd actually have a
> keyword for this so tools could find it, but a comment works for now.) In
> case there isn't a comment, the date of the commit is used.
It is a good idea to put a comment in an obsolete port or subport or
compatibility variant or deactivation hack giving the date one year ahead when
it can be removed. If not present, removal date should be one year from commit
date.
> 2. Once something is `Portgroup obsolete`, it should no longer be considered
> to have a maintainer. After all, there's no longer anything being built or
> maintained. Thus, `maintainer` should be set to `nomaintainer` for such
> files. If there's still a `maintainer` in an `obsolete` port, that is an
> accident and can be ignored for purposes of removing the port at the end of
> the one year timeout.
I have probably left myself as maintainer of some obsolete ports before in
order to convey that I did maintain the port before and to provide a point of
contact in case anyone has questions. Certainly the port could be removed at
the agreed upon time without any indicated maintainer's further consent.
> 3. Setting a port `obsolete` should be considered automatic consent to remove
> it in one year's time,
Sure.
> and there should be no question that a year is a sufficient chance to think
> better of it and bring it back in some form.
The one year period isn't about providing a second chance to restore it; a port
can be restored at any time using the git history. The one year period is about
providing an upgrade mechanism for users who had the port installed before it
went obsolete and who may not upgrade outdated ports often.
> 4. If a subport is set `obsolete`, the usual rules about the maintainer
> needing to consent to touching the Portfile should not apply for removing
> said subport in a year, as the one year is (again) enough time for them to
> think better on it.
In my opinion, that's reasonable, though the point is also valid that the
maintainer may be working on other changes which might conflict with the
removal. It's probably safer to submit a pull request and give the maintainer
the customary 72 hours to react.
