Re: FreBSD pkgbase MUST be ebandoned

On Tue, 10 Feb 2026 14:26:19 -0600 (CST)
Mark Linimon <[email protected]> wrote:

> tl;dr: I am not going to address all of your issues.  However:
> 
> > On 02/09/2026 4:17 PM CST Vadim Goncharov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 
> > They do delete ports without maintainers  
> 
> That is exactly correct and is by design -- iff the port fails to
> build, or is known to have security problems, or is abandoned
> upstream.

No, this is not correct. Previous decades the policy for deleting ports was
another, keeping much more software (until ...) and this was right thing.

> If that's not acceptable to you, then you'd better start maintaining
> such ports in such a way as to not have those problems.  If that
> also means you need to fork and become the new upstream, fine.

Acceptable to me is to return policy as it was in old good times. Ports also
get deleted for similar reasons in that times, too, but not for ridiculous
"modern" reasons.

> > they do delete packages for 12-STABLE exactly the day it's EOL - as
> > if another 100 Gb on servers will make us into poverty  
> 
> IIUC some of our mirrors are also run on a volunteer basis.  As
> compared to ~20 years ago, we are asking for many more TB.  The
> bandwidth and storage we are asking for, for free, is a "big ask".

This is solved by different expiration policy at such mirrors and/or site
like ftp-archive.

> > Let me educate you about how human society (and, by consequence,
> > opensource community), works.  
> 
> No, let me educate _you_ on how decisions are made in FreeBSD -- and
> it's by rough consensus.  And if you don't realize how much energy
> and stress goes in to creating those, then you have *NO* business
> lecturing anyone else.  (Consider me an Expert Witness at this point.)

Nope, I'm participating in IETF activitites and I *know* what "rough consensus"
is and how many time it takes to achieve. And what you are desribing is NOT a 
rough consensus, it is just small group of usurpers trying to impose their
harmful decision on others. You cannot even SAY about a rough consensus until
it was really broad and open for *anyone*.

Do you have poll results about pkgbase for (by rules of sociology/statistics)
at least 1500+ votes? No? Then you are just a liar.

Remember, FreeBSD is made for it's USERS. Not for a small group committing
code to repo.

> Finally, as for the smear-word later in your message, I consider it
> Not Acceptable.

This is funny, as I actually did not called anyone by this word. However, you
react as if it was, which show that that subconsciously you admit guilt. Our
Court Of FreeBSD Users will take this into account.

> If you think that anything you have said in this thread will lead
> to any kind of consensus, then you're merely a fool.

I understand this is typical Ego Inflation and Authority bias fallacy, "who is
that bastard to tell us Respectable People that we are wrong", but this is
only a reason to be ironic and mock the monkey's herd instincts when for
real humans - be it in science or really open society like IETF - anybody can
come and say "King is nude, Earth is rotating around Sun" no matter that 
Solid People said the opposite.

As adrian@ was more constructive, I've described an alternative scheme in a
reply, and nothing can prevent consensus here in future discussions if they
will be done properly, based on technical arguments and logic, not on form of
words or personal attacks fallacies.

-- 
WBR, @nuclight