Re: FreBSD pkgbase MUST be ebandoned

On Sun, 15 Feb 2026 at 14:34, Vadim Goncharov <[email protected]> wrote:

> > 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.

How is it a right thing? It's ok if the cost is zero, but the cost
isn't always zero.
Ports eventually stop building or stop running, and if the maintenance
cost starts
being non-zero, it'll likely get deorbited and deleted.

> > 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.

There's a lot more ports that require a lot more stuff than in the past.
The good old days for me were the late 90s when i was fresh out of
high school and trying to build/run this new java thing university wanted
me to run.

> > 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.

No it's not. The problem is much bigger than that. You have to provide
a consistent
view of the files from all mirrors otherwise you start getting support
queries like
"why's this work for me not for them" and "why's this only work sometimes".

> 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*.

IETF consensus comes from parties that are both doing the design and
implementation
and their goal is to collaborate on implementations that can interoprerate.
That's not the same requirement at FreeBSD.

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

You can't always get that.

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

No. Thats also super misleading, super wrong and extremely super problematic.

FreeBSD is a collaboration between companies who sponsor various kinds of work,
developers who develop (for free, too!) and use it, and users who use
it and provide feedback.

The bulk of freebsd work - src, ports, doc - is not funded work. It's
a collaboration of people
doing it for free, for love, out of some burning desire to contribute,
to scratch an itch, etc.
We're all scratching our own itches.

Talk and debate, as useful as it is, doesn't always end up pushing
forward progress along.
It's useful for building rough consensus and working code. But at some
point we need
working code. And working code is driven by the people willing to do
the work and it can't
just be stopped by talk and debate. Sometimes the direction turns out
to be good. Sometimes
it turns out to be not so good, and it gets removed / replaced with
something else.
But what it can't be is /no forward progress happens because there's
some users who
dislike change or direction/. That's how stuff stagnates. We have
enough stagnation in
various parts of the tree. We don't need more.

So either get a shovel, fund some work, or build consensus. If you're
not able or willing
to do these three then forward progress won't happen and I kindly ask
you to go elsewhere.

Thanks,



-adrian