Greetings, I am planning to kill databases/db2 and .../db3 and .../db40 from the ports tree. devel/tcl-neo is the last user of this database version. Please upgrade the port so that it can work with Berkeley DB 4.1 to avoid this port breaking if db2 gets removed. This requires source code changes, possibly the upstream has a newer version.
Responsible Changed From-To: freebsd-ports-bugs->mi mi@aldan.algebra.com => mi@ (via the GNATS Auto Assign Tool)
Maintainer of devel/tcl-neo, Please note that PR ports/155759 has just been submitted. If it contains a patch for an upgrade, an enhancement or a bug fix you agree on, reply to this email stating that you approve the patch and a committer will take care of it. The full text of the PR can be found at: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/155759 -- Edwin Groothuis via the GNATS Auto Assign Tool edwin@FreeBSD.org
State Changed From-To: open->feedback Awaiting maintainers feedback (via the GNATS Auto Assign Tool)
mandree 2011-04-12 21:54:04 UTC FreeBSD ports repository Modified files: devel/tcl-neo Makefile Log: Mark broken in anticipation of the imminent db2 removal. Maintainer failed to respond since 2011-03-21, see PR: ports/155759 Revision Changes Path 1.18 +2 -0 ports/devel/tcl-neo/Makefile _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-all-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
mandree 2011-04-12 22:03:37 UTC FreeBSD ports repository Modified files: www/neowebscript Makefile devel/tcl-neo Makefile Log: Deprecate and mark for expiry www/neowebscript and devel/tcl-neo. See also - pending since 2011-03-21 - PR: ports/155759 Revision Changes Path 1.19 +2 -0 ports/devel/tcl-neo/Makefile 1.18 +3 -0 ports/www/neowebscript/Makefile _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-all-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Note that I have marked BROKEN, DEPRECATED and EXPIRY_DATE these ports: devel/tcl-neo www/neowebscript They used to be the sole users of devel/db2, which had been outdated for ages and was now removed from ports. -- Matthias Andree
State Changed From-To: feedback->suspended maintainer timeout
mandree 2011-05-22 21:34:32 UTC FreeBSD ports repository Modified files: . MOVED devel Makefile www Makefile Removed files: devel/tcl-neo Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist devel/tcl-neo/files Makefile.bsd patch-config patch-cute patch-db patch-md5 patch-warnings www/neowebscript Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist www/neowebscript/files Makefile.bsd Makefile.lib neowebscript.conf.in patch-access patch-common patch-db patch-docs patch-gd patch-init patch-neoscript patch-warnings pkg-message.in Log: Kill deprecated ports: devel/tcl-neo and www/neowebscript. These have been broken and deprecated for weeks, the maintainer has not responded, and there was no discussion in the PR or on ports@. PR: ports/155759 Revision Changes Path 1.2461 +3 -1 ports/MOVED 1.4333 +0 -1 ports/devel/Makefile 1.21 +0 -58 ports/devel/tcl-neo/Makefile (dead) 1.4 +0 -3 ports/devel/tcl-neo/distinfo (dead) 1.7 +0 -30 ports/devel/tcl-neo/files/Makefile.bsd (dead) 1.2 +0 -4 ports/devel/tcl-neo/files/patch-config (dead) 1.4 +0 -381 ports/devel/tcl-neo/files/patch-cute (dead) 1.2 +0 -10 ports/devel/tcl-neo/files/patch-db (dead) 1.2 +0 -27 ports/devel/tcl-neo/files/patch-md5 (dead) 1.3 +0 -938 ports/devel/tcl-neo/files/patch-warnings (dead) 1.3 +0 -22 ports/devel/tcl-neo/pkg-descr (dead) 1.5 +0 -63 ports/devel/tcl-neo/pkg-plist (dead) 1.2888 +0 -1 ports/www/Makefile 1.19 +0 -58 ports/www/neowebscript/Makefile (dead) 1.5 +0 -2 ports/www/neowebscript/distinfo (dead) 1.2 +0 -18 ports/www/neowebscript/files/Makefile.bsd (dead) 1.6 +0 -33 ports/www/neowebscript/files/Makefile.lib (dead) 1.3 +0 -45 ports/www/neowebscript/files/neowebscript.conf.in (dead) 1.3 +0 -249 ports/www/neowebscript/files/patch-access (dead) 1.2 +0 -19 ports/www/neowebscript/files/patch-common (dead) 1.2 +0 -29 ports/www/neowebscript/files/patch-db (dead) 1.2 +0 -9 ports/www/neowebscript/files/patch-docs (dead) 1.2 +0 -12 ports/www/neowebscript/files/patch-gd (dead) 1.2 +0 -62 ports/www/neowebscript/files/patch-init (dead) 1.4 +0 -433 ports/www/neowebscript/files/patch-neoscript (dead) 1.2 +0 -21 ports/www/neowebscript/files/patch-warnings (dead) 1.3 +0 -9 ports/www/neowebscript/files/pkg-message.in (dead) 1.2 +0 -16 ports/www/neowebscript/pkg-descr (dead) 1.5 +0 -853 ports/www/neowebscript/pkg-plist (dead) _______________________________________________ cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "cvs-all-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
State Changed From-To: suspended->closed Broken ports deleted, no maintainer interest, no objections on ports@ or in this PR.
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... -mi
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
On 23.05.2011 06:42, Matthias Andree wrote: > 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 This is true -- I was silent on the PR. My earlier objection was to my alleged "silence" on ports@ > and your ports were broken since the db2 removal in April. Yes, they were. The person(s) behind that gratuitous removal is/are responsible for the breakage of tcl-neo* > Conclusion: neowebscript is not only unmaintained in ports, but > also unmaintained upstream. Both were maintained in the ports as much as was needed to ensure successful builds -- until some busybody came along to remove the perfectly functional databases/db2 -- on bogus grounds. > I do concur with Wesley Shields and Eitan Adler that we don't need > unmaintained software in the ports tree I'm well familiar with this line of reasoning and reject it. As long as the port builds -- and has no known unpatched security holes -- it is "maintained" and should not be removed. All other reasons: "too old", "not used by anybody I know", etc. are subjective and are based of non-existent statistics. Though tcl-neo* themselves stopped building, this was a result of the (gratuitous) removal of db2 -- and whoever was behind that removal, was supposed to fix the fallout, or, better yet, find some other application for their energy. That a package is discontinued up-stream is not a good reason for removal at all -- not until you remove games/bsdgames and the entire KDE3 (for just some examples)... That said, I'm not insisting, the ports be resurrected and will not be doing it myself out of spite. I'm no longer using the software, and neither does the client, for whom I originally ported it. But I don't like this drive to remove working ports, in which the energetic removers see no value personally, and restate this position again because, evidently, certain active decision-makers weren't aware of it... Yours, -mi
Am 23.05.2011 16:13, schrieb Mikhail T.: > On 23.05.2011 06:42, Matthias Andree wrote: >> 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 > This is true -- I was silent on the PR. My earlier objection was to my > alleged "silence" on ports@ Please insert blank lines between quotes and replies. >> and your ports were broken since the db2 removal in April. > Yes, they were. The person(s) behind that gratuitous removal is/are > responsible for the breakage of tcl-neo* Yes. See below. It may be hard to see one's former work go away. I understand that this causes hard feelings, and I thank you for the past work you've done. Still, if the port itself is way outdated and had to be patched up so it could creep forward in spite of promises to fix issues such as the dependency mixes, that is a technical observation and reason for removal. > Both were maintained in the ports as much as was needed to ensure > successful builds -- until some busybody came along to remove the > perfectly functional databases/db2 -- on bogus grounds. "Perfectly functional" is what you call a library that has been outdated for a dozen years, and superseded by 14 releases since. And these weren't feature releases, with very few exceptions. > "maintained" and should not be removed. All other reasons: "too old", > "not used by anybody I know", etc. are subjective and are based of > non-existent statistics. Though tcl-neo* themselves stopped building, > this was a result of the (gratuitous) removal of db2 -- and whoever was > behind that removal, was supposed to fix the fallout, or, better yet, > find some other application for their energy. "Not used by anybody I know" is not my argument, and to avoid just that, two months of time for technical objection were granted before the removal. And I have spent effort to upgrade db3-only applications over the past weeks so that I could remove db3 earlier today. (mail/spamprobe is currently broken for different reasons, namely libpbl C++ incompatibilities). For db2 I suspected what you've confirmed: no users left for this abandoned software. > That a package is discontinued up-stream is not a good reason for > removal at all -- not until you remove games/bsdgames and the entire > KDE3 (for just some examples)... The packages in questions were not only discontinued more than ten years ago, but in the case of Berkeley DB 2.7.7, superseded as well. > That said, I'm not insisting, the ports be resurrected and will not be > doing it myself out of spite. I'm no longer using the software, and > neither does the client, for whom I originally ported it. But I don't > like this drive to remove working ports, in which the energetic removers > see no value personally, and restate this position again because, > evidently, certain active decision-makers weren't aware of it... There's more to come in the way of Berkeley DB port cleanups... we've still got more than a dozen, and that needs to change. We can get along with a lot less, see pkgsrc.org or your typical Linux distro, and we should do that, to remove the strain on sysadmins of pinning Berkeley DB versions. That would be more of a user service than forcefully keeping clinically-dead ports alive. Best regards, Matthias
On 23.05.2011 11:24, Matthias Andree wrote: > discontinued more than ten years ago, but in the case of Berkeley DB 2.7.7, superseded as well. These -- being "too old" (BSD's hack is much older, BTW) or "superseded" -- aren't valid reasons in my opinion. As long as a package keeps building -- and there were no problems with it, when db2 was removed -- it should not be deleted. Ever. Even the maintainer (who does "know best", how to maintain it) can't remove it -- only disown it. -mi