Please stop removing perfectly working ports from the tree.
textproc/obsidian is the latest victim, just because it currently
depends on devel/electron25 - which builds and runs perfectly well too.
User can in-app update obsidian.
If the package building team already blacklisted devel/electron25 to
circumvent interference, why not keep it that way?
Historically, ports tree was for the users, not for the package building
team. It worked well like two decades for both parties, but the last
two years there were many ports killed for no reason, resp. by
completely meaningless justifications like 'it's old' - there haven't
been new upstream commits for years.
There is the BROKEN variable for the reason that even non perfectly
working ports can be kept in the tree to be discovered by fellows having
time to fix it. Erasing work which people already invested to create a
port is for no benefit to anybody/anything.
Let it up to the users' decision how they want to deal with 'pkg audit'
results.
There are people running FreeBSD offline - because FreeBSD can be kept
offline easily and it's easy to run your own package building
environment - even installing ports without building packages still is
an option today.
The new habit of ports tree cleanup does harm that outstanding FreeBSD
feature and just boosts the disadvantage over Linux that we don't have
applications available which are available on Linux.
I vote for needing explicit maintainer approval before anyone is allowed
to remove any ports from the tree.
If the current maintainer isn't responding or a specific port doesn't
have a maintainer, the users' should have a veto option at least.
Blindly removing ports is counter productive to the project, imho.
-harry
