Re: CVS commit: pkgsrc/chat/jabberd

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

Leonardo Taccari <leot%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:

>> On this subject, eol-packages is ambiguous on a few points:
>>
>>   There is a date field.  What's this for, and what does it mean?
>>
>>     - Is it the date the entry was added?  (If so, why is this useful?)
>>
>>     - Is it the date that the package was declared eol by the upstream?
>>
>>     - Is it the date that we decided, perhaps in retrospect, that
>>       upstream is no longer functioning?  If so, is there a norm for how
>>       and when to decide.  (Clearly 12 years is enough; it's 4 that's
>>       hard.)
>
> It is the date that the package was declared eol by the upstream (the
> first example commented out is confusing).

Then probably that should be stated in the file.  Also, it should be
explained what to do when upstream has not made an eol declaration.
Perhaps the package should not be listed here in that case.  Then, we
need an approach for packages where upstream doesn't seem to be
maintaining the package, but has not declared it eol.

>>   There is a "URL" field.  It's clear in the case of a functioning
>>   upstream that deprecates a branch, for which we have a multi-version
>>   package.  For an upstream that just sort of stops, it's quite unclear
>>   what if anything belongs here.
>> [...]
>
> In these cases, URL with announcement about possible forks, possible
> de-facto replacements or similar could be helpful (a couple of entries
> also don't have any URL field at all in that case).

OK - perhaps you can edit eol-packages to explain this.