Re: Retiring lpr and lpd

On 2/25/26 12:03, Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> John Baldwin <[email protected]> writes:
>> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[email protected]> writes:
>>> Let me get this straight, you intend to create a port for software
>>> which is still in base (and is expected to remain there for at least
>>> another year) and is known to be severely buggy?
>> Uh, this is our standard operating procedure for moving things out of base,
>> and Cy has helped with many of these:
> 
> No, it is not our standard operating procedure to create ports that
> duplicate software which is still in base and is not expected to be
> removed for at least a year, nor is it our standard operating procedure
> to knowingly add vulnerable software to the ports tree.

Certainly if it is fine to defer the actual port creation until the
software is removed.  That is fair.  However, I certainly expected in
our earlier discussions that we would handle the removal by creating a
port, and the resistance to that is a bit surprising to me.

>> I'm surprised you are so out of touch with how we handle this given
>> you are proposing removing something?
> 
> This is beneath you, John.  Do you want to check who maintains, say,
> security/opie?

I was only responding in kind to your previous reply to Cy.  That doesn't
justify it though and it was over the top.

-- 
John Baldwin