Policy on `obsolete` ports...

Dave Allured - NOAA Affiliate dave.allured at noaa.gov
Fri Nov 19 23:02:51 UTC 2021

Perry, you said "remove".  I would like to have obsolete ports moved to an
inactive permanent reference archive, preferably somewhere in the ports
code base, rather than permanently removed.  This would mainly be for
possible resurrection at any time in the future.

I think your proposed rules are fine, except for the premise in #3.  You
might never know how far out someone might find a reason to resurrect some
old crufty thing.  I would say that a year is sufficient to move something
from obsolete to graveyard.

On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 2:05 PM Perry E. Metzger <perry at piermont.com> wrote:

> Howdy! As things stand, we don't explicitly say much in our rules about
> whether people can remove obsolete ports after a year even without a
> port maintainer's say-so. We also have circumstances where people leave
> "maintainer" lines in ports that have been put into `obsolete`.
> I'd like to propose the following rules:
> 1. There must always be a comment in a `PortGroup obsolete` Portfile
> stating the date on which the port can be removed. (Ideally we'd
> actually have a keyword for this so tools could find it, but a comment
> works for now.) In case there isn't a comment, the date of the commit is
> used.
> 2. Once something is `Portgroup obsolete`, it should no longer be
> considered to have a maintainer. After all, there's no longer anything
> being built or maintained. Thus, `maintainer` should be set to
> `nomaintainer` for such files. If there's still a `maintainer` in an
> `obsolete` port, that is an accident and can be ignored for purposes of
> removing the port at the end of the one year timeout.
> 3. Setting a port `obsolete` should be considered automatic consent to
> remove it in one year's time, and there should be no question that a
> year is a sufficient chance to think better of it and bring it back in
> some form.
> 4. If a subport is set `obsolete`, the usual rules about the maintainer
> needing to consent to touching the Portfile should not apply for
> removing said subport in a year, as the one year is (again) enough time
> for them to think better on it.
> Do people think these suggested rules are okay? Are there any objections?
> Perry
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20211119/e38c4e25/attachment.htm>

More information about the macports-dev mailing list