Thoughts on the EOL Policy For Ports

msplsh

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 161
Messages: 491

If something works for me, why should I be forced to fix it something that wasn't broke?
Why should somebody be forced to maintain something that is broken for them?

the FreeBSD team should instead copy all the source code on FreeBSD servers to ensure that the source code remains available so that ports continue working without disruption
The FreeBSD team thinks YOU should copy all the source code to your machine to ensure the software you care about continues working.

You don't have any power in the situation, so I can understand how a bunch of people telling you what do can be frustrating, but they're doing the work and we're just reaping the benefits. Seems only fair. If you think you can just pick up your ball and go somewhere else, well, wherever you go, those people are going to have to do work too. Sometimes nobody wants to do the work because it just isn't worth it.
 

msplsh

Well-Known Member

Reaction score: 161
Messages: 491

It makes me say argh. So we have 2 or 3 people building SeaMonkey and lots of overlaping work.
Those people don't have to do it that way. They could combine forces but programmer hubris and power structures are a thing.
 

phalange

Active Member

Reaction score: 86
Messages: 196

Unfortunately I'm living in a different reality… Haven't count the lines of code, but:
I see your point about the profit incentive there, or really lack of profit incentive to update the code.

Dropping ports just because the upstream says "no more updates" isn't useful as long this software doesn't make problems. A script f.e. isn't insecure when it hasn't been modified for the last 5 years.

Scripts are fine I'm not concerned about those. I don't like keeping software around once EOL'd. It seems to me official repos should represent some assurance of quality rather than quantity. Why not have a secondary repo for retired software?
 

Phishfry

Beastie's Twin

Reaction score: 2,368
Messages: 5,272

They could combine forces but programmer hubris and power structures are a thing.
No I am saying the opposite. Because the rigors of the ports tree is missing it is an information void.
The ports systems connects us all. coders can coordinate.
This chap on the mailing list thought he was helping people out. Sharing his finds.
He probably has no idea there were other survivors.
When a popular port is expelled the hardcore will cling on.
 

bobmc

Member

Reaction score: 13
Messages: 44

UNIX designers were guided by a design philosophy. They received the ACM Turing award which is like the Nobel prize.

1. Make each program do one thing well. To do a new job, build afresh rather than complicate old programs by adding new “features”. --Doug McIlroy ((Python .. are you listening?))

Perhaps the tools for BSD unix should be unix-like. Not as dogma, but as a way of thinking about design.

In 1983, Thompson and Ritchie received the ACM A. M. Turing Award. The Turing Award selection committee wrote:

The success of the UNIX system stems from its tasteful selection of a few key ideas and their elegant implementation. The model of the Unix system has led a generation of software designers to new ways of thinking about programming. The genius of the Unix system is its framework, which enables programmers to stand on the work of others.
 

Phishfry

Beastie's Twin

Reaction score: 2,368
Messages: 5,272

Like I said I have no solutions as Python27 is EOL.
I am dismayed that SeaMonkey is still using python27.
I can't blame the ports system. They can only be so flexible.
 
OP
reddy

reddy

Active Member

Reaction score: 65
Messages: 107

Why should somebody be forced to maintain something that is broken for them?


The FreeBSD team thinks YOU should copy all the source code to your machine to ensure the software you care about continues working.

You don't have any power in the situation, so I can understand how a bunch of people telling you what do can be frustrating, but they're doing the work and we're just reaping the benefits. Seems only fair. If you think you can just pick up your ball and go somewhere else, well, wherever you go, those people are going to have to do work too. Sometimes nobody wants to do the work because it just isn't worth it.

Thanks I agree with this, the reason for this thread is to think through the question: "while we assume that the current approach is making life easier for maintainers, isn't it actually the opposite" and which policy would benefit everyone (including maintainers and end users) the most.
 
Top