According to http://sourceforge.net/projects/rxvt/files/rxvt-dev/2.7.10/ and http://sourceforge.net/p/rxvt/code/1787/log/?path= the latest version of x11/rxvt-devel is 2.7.10, which is from 2003 with the latest commit being from 2008. It would appear that this port is no longer maintained upstream. Moreover, people are reporting problems with it on the Forums and the port doesn't have a maintainer. What's more, x11/rxvt-unicode does pretty much everything x11/rxvt-devel promises, the difference being that the former actually works as advertised. So, I'm inclined to think that x11/rxvt-devel can probably be removed from the ports tree. x11/rxvt and x11/rxvt-unicode (depending on how many features one wants) are viable alternatives that are actively maintained both on our end and upstream.
Robak, here is another port to practice port removal skills -- I assigned it to you. This one you'll only need to set expiration data and deprecation for some period in the future (say 3-4 weeks). when the time expires you can either let it be reaped or remove it yourself. (your choice)
Any news on this? I was intending this to be a "quick action" PR. Is there an issue that's holding up its deprecation or outright removal?
(In reply to John Marino from comment #2) > Any news on this? I was intending this to be a "quick action" PR. Is there > an issue that's holding up its deprecation or outright removal? You're not going to like this, John. But I'd been using x11/rxvt-unicode. But wanted more. So, looking for something similar, that would allow for features, and enhancements *I* thought were of value, made x11/rxvt-devel the perfect candidate. It's been effectively abandoned, and gives me a "jumpstart" on adding the elements I wanted, and allows me to start leveraging vt(4). Something, the others *don't*. So please consider this an UPDATE, and req for MAINTAINER. As a consolation, you could always reap x11/rxvt. :) Please find svn(1) diff(1), attached. Requisite QA will also accompany this. Thank you for all your time, and consideration. --Chris
Created attachment 150378 [details] x11/rxvt-devel UPDATE, FIX, req MAINTAINER x11/rxvt-devel Title, and previous comment says it all. :) Thanks! --Chris
Created attachment 150379 [details] x11/rxvt-devel requisite QA Requisite QA. Thanks! --Chris
Created attachment 150383 [details] x11/rxvt-devel UPDATE, FIX, req MAINTAINER As previous, but updated overlooked docs. Which necessitated updating distinfo, and a re-pack. Thank you for all your time, and consideration. --Chris
I am testing the port now, and if everything is OK with it, I am more than happy to commit the changes updating it and assigning the maintainership as long as other guys are happy with it! Kind regards, Bartek Rutkowski
i think the port needs a name change, otherwise I'm okay with it. This is essentially a forked project, not the -devel version of rxvt.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #8) > i think the port needs a name change, otherwise I'm okay with it. > > This is essentially a forked project, not the -devel version of rxvt. You know, I struggled with that myself. But wasn't sure. Thanks for making it easier to decide. :) Before I embark on the name change. I want to confirm you're good with my choice -- xvt. It was the original name, 20yrs. ago, and hasn't been used since 1997. So if you respond with affirmative. I'll make the changes, and resubmit anew. Thanks, John. --Chris
If you are asking my opinion, I think it should be a unique name -- even if the previous one hasn't been used for twenty years. E.g. If Atari released a brand new 2600 today, it would still be confusing.
(In reply to John Marino from comment #10) > If you are asking my opinion, I think it should be a unique name -- even if > the previous one hasn't been used for twenty years. > > E.g. If Atari released a brand new 2600 today, it would still be confusing. Very good point, John. Not a day goes by, that I'm not just *sure* that I'm going to hear Atari is back on top, and the "New Big Thing". ;) Seriously; I completely see your point. After giving it a bit more thought. I think I'm just going to go ahead use xvt. It honors the original Authors efforts, and should by any strange chance, an xvt revival returns. I'm confident there won't be any issues that can't be easily resolved. :) I think it's also a more intuitive name for what it is. As this won't be an appropriate pr(1) for the now, new port. I've created a new one for it: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195840 Thanks, John. For all your input. @Bartek If it's all the same to John, feel free to DEPRECIATE / reap this port. :) OH, while you're at it. You might want to do the same to x11/rxvt too. :) Thanks to everyone, for all your time, and attention! --Chris
Chris, Any chance to name your project/port xvt-ng or somethng like that in order to keep the original xvt reference and still have a unique name? Also, your patch was failing to build for me on 8.4 systems. Kind regards, Bartek Rutkowski
Created attachment 150431 [details] x11/xvt - built on RELENG_9 (with no issue) Hello, Bartek. Are we talking about the same port? After discussion with John. I decided to abandon the idea to maintain x11/rxvt-devel, and start it as a new port: x11/xvt. The source, and request is in a new, and different pr(1): https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195840 I develop on 11-CURRENT, and it built, and passed all testing. As shown in the attachment, that accompanies that pr: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=150419 Because you indicated you had trouble building it. I am attaching the output from a test build I just now performed on a RELENG_9 box (this attachment). If we *are* talking about x11/xvt. Can we move this discussion to it's new pr ( https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195840 ) please? Thank you, Bartek. For all your time, and attention to this. --Chris
yes, it's the same port. His port is "xvt" isn't unique either (it's re-used). He's suggesting it should be something unique, e.g. xvt2, xvt-next, xvt-hutch, etc.
s/port/point/
(In reply to John Marino from comment #15) > s/port/point/ Hi John, Yes I got the po(r||in)t. I simply wanted to 1) indicate (the new version) tested well on RELENG_9 && 11-CURRENT 2) move the discussion to it's new pr(1) So he can *finally* DEPRECIATE || reap this one. :) Thanks! --Chris
A commit references this bug: Author: robak Date: Tue Dec 16 20:12:14 UTC 2014 New revision: 374820 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/374820 Log: x11/rxvt-devel: set DEPRECATED and EXPIRATION_DATE=2014-01-13 PR: 195034 Submitted by: A.J. "Fonz" van Werven <freebsd@skysmurf.nl> Changes: head/x11/rxvt-devel/Makefile
A commit references this bug: Author: robak Date: Tue Dec 16 20:14:34 UTC 2014 New revision: 374822 URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/374822 Log: x11/rxvt-devel: fix EXPIRATION_DATE value 2014-01-13 -> 2015-01-13 PR: 195034 Changes: head/x11/rxvt-devel/Makefile
Port removed, closing.