According to FreshPorts this port is the last one to depend on the long time unsupported upstream devel/arm-none-eabi-gcc492. Would it be possible to use a supported version of GCC instead? At the moment, the supported versions are GCC 10, 11, 12 and 13 should come soon. GCC_DEFAULT is 12.
(In reply to Lorenzo Salvadore from comment #0) Hi Lorenzo, what is the procedure of removing / retiring a port? I do not use it (or the device it was meant for) anymore at all. Also, I had never been contacted by anyone about this port until you did. ;-) From my point of view, it need not be maintained anymore anyway.
I also see that the port is missing in https://bsdstats.org/bt/ports/category/sysutils.html , which I guess means that no installations of it have been recorded by that database. This does not prove that nobody uses it (e.g. not everyone installs bsdstats), but together with your experience it is a strong hint. I would say we can deprececate the port and see if someone complains before the expiration date comes. Here is the documentation about how to deprecate ports: https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/porting-dads/#dads-deprecated Please submit a patch with the DEPRECATED and EXPIRATION_DATE set, then I will commit it. Thanks.
Created attachment 240368 [details] deprecate port and set expiration date
A commit in branch main references this bug: URL: https://cgit.FreeBSD.org/ports/commit/?id=5c35cbe93da05bd8243721adcfc1d9015be7eab6 commit 5c35cbe93da05bd8243721adcfc1d9015be7eab6 Author: Martin Waschbüsch <martin@waschbuesch.de> AuthorDate: 2023-02-24 09:24:08 +0000 Commit: Lorenzo Salvadore <salvadore@FreeBSD.org> CommitDate: 2023-02-24 10:17:26 +0000 sysutils/u-boot-utilite: Deprecate port Deprecate port and set expiration date. While here, also sort some variables, which might be useful if the port is saved from expiration or resurrected later. PR: 269661 Reported by: salvadore sysutils/u-boot-utilite/Makefile | 19 +++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
Thanks Martin, I have committed your patch. I have only removed the PORTREVISION bump because it is not necessary in this case: the package does not get any functional change. Please see also https://docs.freebsd.org/en/books/porters-handbook/book/#makefile-portrevision for more details.
(In reply to Lorenzo Salvadore from comment #5) Thanks for the information! I had googled PORTREVISION and was unsure of whether it was needed. As I do not do lots of PRs here, I often do not get these things right - lack of experience and (more importantly, I guess) practice. ;-) In the end, my rationale for bumping was that a pkg upgrade would then, for people who have installed it, result in the post-install deprecation notice (even though nothing else changed). That may have been a wrong assessment, though?
(In reply to Martin Waschbüsch from comment #6) Changes in the generated packages should also be weighted with the cost of recompiling the port (mainly for users who build their own ports). This is the reason for not bumping PORTREVISION when MAINTAINER changes. A deprecation notice is usually considered not enough to have the port recompiled. When you have doubts, three good strategies are: - ask (in the mailing lists, in the bug report itself, on irc...); - search the mailing lists archive: https://www.freebsd.org/search/#mailinglists ; - look at what others have done using git log, which is what I usually do myself. In this case "git log --grep=Deprecate -p" is helpful.
(In reply to Lorenzo Salvadore from comment #7) Thanks. I'll try to adhere to that next time.