Re: Care and Feeding

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 4:07 AM Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org> wrote:
> Re the first submission you pointed out, here is the comment:
> - programmable MUD client, but beta rather than stable
> This doesn't sound like something we want in ports.
TinyFugue is a weird thing. Both tf4 and tf5 (which should be
considered separate ports/packages) haven't been touched by the
developer since January 2007, over a decade ago. They're
unmaintained, except in a variety of forks of which none are an
obvious most popular successor.
Because of the lack of a clear successor and lack of motivation to
change ("if it's not totally broken and unusable, don't fix it!")
people still use _both_ of those often. TinyFugue's sourceforge
supplies users tf5 by default.
Some OSes/packagemanagers have only tf4 (openbsd, netbsd), some have
only tf5 (freebsd, fedora), and some have both tf4 and tf5 available
as separate packages (debian and all debian-based distros)
I checked all those stats myself, but this link may be useful too:
https://repology.org/project/tinyfugue/versions
Is it possible that tf4 could be removed from ports? It's definitely
unmaintained, but still used by the people who prefer it over tf5.
(though I make a point to only use tf5, since tf4 doesn't support TLS.
However, I myself don't use tf as often as I used to, even though I
still use it)
In my own opinion, I think it's smarter to have no tinyfugue than to
not have both tinyfugue versions. But that's just me, and definitely
because I care a lot about secure connections to the MU*s I use.
> (Also in general, new ports are always trickier because there's a policy of
> always needing a second developer ok to commit them, so you need to get two
> dev's interested in it!)
Ahaa, I see.
> Second one: diff please! Don't forget the REVISION bump.
Did it. :3 Sent it back in its original thread.