Why delete KDE3 ports?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
22 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Why delete KDE3 ports?

Mikhail T.-6
On 07.01.2013 03:33, [hidden email] wrote:
> portname:           accessibility/kdeaccessibility
> description:        Accessibility applications for KDE
> maintainer:[hidden email]
> deprecated because: Depends on QT3; unmaintained
> expiration date:    2013-07-01
> build errors:       none.
> overview:http://portsmon.FreeBSD.org/portoverview.py?category=accessibility&portname=kdeaccessibility
Once again a working port (no build errors) is scheduled for deletion on
the grounds of simply being "unmaintained".

Please, reconsider deleting this and other KDE-3 ports.

    -mi

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

David DEMELIER
Because Qt3 is old and KDE3 will completely disappear. It the same goal for
GNOME 2 (not for now because GNOME 3 is not yet available) but GNOME 2 will
ne probably replaced by MATE.

I think you should look at trinity. It is a fork of KDE3 and is in
development to be ported to Qt4 :)

http://mate-desktop.org/
http://www.trinitydesktop.org/


2013/1/7 Mikhail T. <[hidden email]>

> On 07.01.2013 03:33, freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.**org<[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> portname:           accessibility/kdeaccessibility
>> description:        Accessibility applications for KDE
>> maintainer:[hidden email]
>> deprecated because: Depends on QT3; unmaintained
>> expiration date:    2013-07-01
>> build errors:       none.
>> overview:http://portsmon.**FreeBSD.org/portoverview.py?**
>> category=accessibility&**portname=kdeaccessibility<http://portsmon.FreeBSD.org/portoverview.py?category=accessibility&portname=kdeaccessibility>
>>
> Once again a working port (no build errors) is scheduled for deletion on
> the grounds of simply being "unmaintained".
>
> Please, reconsider deleting this and other KDE-3 ports.
>
>    -mi
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> [hidden email] mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/**mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports<http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@**freebsd.org<[hidden email]>
> "
>



--
Demelier David
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

John Marino-4
In reply to this post by Mikhail T.-6
On 1/7/2013 15:22, Mikhail T. wrote:

> On 07.01.2013 03:33, [hidden email] wrote:
>> portname: accessibility/kdeaccessibility
>> description: Accessibility applications for KDE
>> maintainer:[hidden email]
>> deprecated because: Depends on QT3; unmaintained
>> expiration date: 2013-07-01
>> build errors: none.
>> overview:http://portsmon.FreeBSD.org/portoverview.py?category=accessibility&portname=kdeaccessibility
>>
> Once again a working port (no build errors) is scheduled for deletion on
> the grounds of simply being "unmaintained".
>
> Please, reconsider deleting this and other KDE-3 ports.

I don't normally agree with Mikhail's rants to save old ports, but in
the case of KDE-3, I am inclined to share his view.

Are KDE-3 ports causing any problems?  I don't know if KDE-3 is still be
developed upstream, but if it's not it doesn't really need much maintenance.

John
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

Mikhail T.-6
In reply to this post by David DEMELIER
On 07.01.2013 09:41, David Demelier wrote:
> Because Qt3 is old and KDE3 will completely disappear.
This is exactly the sentiment I find disagreeable -- that simply being
"old" is enough to condemn a perfectly functional piece of software.

Maybe, it is because of my own age, that I am -- in the back of my mind
-- becoming concerned, the sentiment may get applied to humans as well.
But, more likely, it is simply because it does not make sense...

> I think you should look at trinity. It is a fork of KDE3 and is in
> development to be ported to Qt4 :)
Yes, I looked at it, and may even port it some day -- if I find a
collaborator or two. In my opinion, absent the other "prong", Trinity is
not even a "fork", but the actual next version of KDE3 (something, KDE4
is not).

But, until then, deleting KDE3 ports -- which continue to build fine --
seems wrong.

    -mi

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

Kimmo Paasiala-2
In reply to this post by John Marino-4
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 4:43 PM, John Marino <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 1/7/2013 15:22, Mikhail T. wrote:
>>
>> On 07.01.2013 03:33, [hidden email] wrote:
>>>
>>> portname: accessibility/kdeaccessibility
>>> description: Accessibility applications for KDE
>>> maintainer:[hidden email]
>>> deprecated because: Depends on QT3; unmaintained
>>> expiration date: 2013-07-01
>>> build errors: none.
>>>
>>> overview:http://portsmon.FreeBSD.org/portoverview.py?category=accessibility&portname=kdeaccessibility
>>>
>> Once again a working port (no build errors) is scheduled for deletion on
>> the grounds of simply being "unmaintained".
>>
>> Please, reconsider deleting this and other KDE-3 ports.
>
>
> I don't normally agree with Mikhail's rants to save old ports, but in the
> case of KDE-3, I am inclined to share his view.
>
> Are KDE-3 ports causing any problems?  I don't know if KDE-3 is still be
> developed upstream, but if it's not it doesn't really need much maintenance.
>
> John
>

I'm asking this on behalf of the port maintainers so they don't have
to. I'm not a committer nor a maintainer of any ports myself fyi.

Are you willing to step up as the maintainer of the KDE3 ports? Or
anyone else reading this? The situation with ports like KDE3 is that
they are lots of work to keep up in shape and if no one wants to
maintain them they succumb to what is called "bitrot" very quickly
when something changes in dependent ports or in the base system.

-Kimmo
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

Mikhail T.-6
On 07.01.2013 09:54, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
> Are you willing to step up as the maintainer of the KDE3 ports? Or
> anyone else reading this? The situation with ports like KDE3 is that
> they are lots of work to keep up in shape and if no one wants to
> maintain them they succumb to what is called "bitrot" very quickly
> when something changes in dependent ports or in the base system.
When/if that happens, we can renew the conversation. For the time being
there are no build errors.

    -mi

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

John Marino-4
On 1/7/2013 16:04, Mikhail T. wrote:
> On 07.01.2013 09:54, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>> Are you willing to step up as the maintainer of the KDE3 ports? Or
>> anyone else reading this? The situation with ports like KDE3 is that
>> they are lots of work to keep up in shape and if no one wants to
>> maintain them they succumb to what is called "bitrot" very quickly
>> when something changes in dependent ports or in the base system.

> When/if that happens, we can renew the conversation. For the time being
> there are no build errors.

I agree with this.  Simple bitrot can be patched pretty quickly even w/o
a maintainer and if nobody is willing to do that then sure, kill it.

FYI I already maintain a number of ports and I intend to add more Ada
ports in the future, so I can't pick up KDE3 myself.

John
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

Erik Trulsson-3
In reply to this post by Mikhail T.-6
Quoting "Mikhail T." <[hidden email]>:

> On 07.01.2013 09:54, Kimmo Paasiala wrote:
>> Are you willing to step up as the maintainer of the KDE3 ports? Or
>> anyone else reading this? The situation with ports like KDE3 is that
>> they are lots of work to keep up in shape and if no one wants to
>> maintain them they succumb to what is called "bitrot" very quickly
>> when something changes in dependent ports or in the base system.
>
> When/if that happens, we can renew the conversation. For the time  
> being there are no build errors.

Indeed.  That a port is old is not a good reason to remove it.
That a port is unmaintained is also not a good reason to remove it.

If a port stops working and nobody steps up to fix it, *then* removal
becomes a reasonable action, but not before that.






_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

Andrea Venturoli
In reply to this post by John Marino-4
On 01/07/13 15:43, John Marino wrote:

> I don't normally agree with Mikhail's rants to save old ports, but in
> the case of KDE-3, I am inclined to share his view.
>
> Are KDE-3 ports causing any problems?  I don't know if KDE-3 is still be
> developed upstream, but if it's not it doesn't really need much
> maintenance.

I fully agree with both statements.

  bye
        av.

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

Beat Gätzi-2
In reply to this post by Mikhail T.-6
On 01/07/13 15:22, Mikhail T. wrote:
> On 07.01.2013 03:33, [hidden email] wrote:
>> portname:           accessibility/kdeaccessibility description:
>> Accessibility applications for KDE maintainer:[hidden email]
>> deprecated because: Depends on QT3; unmaintained expiration date:
>> 2013-07-01 build errors:       none.
>> overview:http://portsmon.FreeBSD.org/portoverview.py?category=accessibility&portname=kdeaccessibility
>>
>
>>
Once again a working port (no build errors) is scheduled for deletion on
> the grounds of simply being "unmaintained".

QT 3.3.8 was released in 2007 and KDE 3.5.10 in 2008 and both are no
longer maintained upstream nor in the ports tree. They possibly
contain security vulnerabilities and they likely will break in the
future if a build or lib dependency gets updated as they assume a 5
year old environment.

The deprecation period was set to 6 month to give someone the
opportunity to update QT3 and KDE3 to the Trinity fork and I'm happy
to offer exp-runs (once the clusters are back) if someone has patches
but I don't see a reason why we should keep pointyhat busy (during
exp-runs and frequent QA runs) with something that is outdated and
mostly unmaintained for years now, prone to break and possibly insecure.

Beat

> Please, reconsider deleting this and other KDE-3 ports.
>
> -mi
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

John Marino-4
On 1/7/2013 19:40, Beat Gaetzi wrote:

> On 01/07/13 15:22, Mikhail T. wrote:
> Once again a working port (no build errors) is scheduled for deletion on
>> the grounds of simply being "unmaintained".
>
> QT 3.3.8 was released in 2007 and KDE 3.5.10 in 2008 and both are no
> longer maintained upstream nor in the ports tree. They possibly
> contain security vulnerabilities and they likely will break in the
> future if a build or lib dependency gets updated as they assume a 5
> year old environment.
>
> The deprecation period was set to 6 month to give someone the
> opportunity to update QT3 and KDE3 to the Trinity fork and I'm happy
> to offer exp-runs (once the clusters are back) if someone has patches
> but I don't see a reason why we should keep pointyhat busy (during
> exp-runs and frequent QA runs) with something that is outdated and
> mostly unmaintained for years now, prone to break and possibly insecure.

Here's the issue I think some folks have:

"Outdated": debatable.  If outdated means a newer release is available,
then yes.  If "outdated" means it outlived its usefulness, I'd say no.
This term seems subjectively used here.

"prone to break": Perhaps, but it's not broken now.

"possibly insecure":  I think this needs to be "known insecure" rather
than holding it's last release date against it.

So currently it's not broken, not known to be insecure, and it's
probably still useful.  I know I'd feel better if this discussion were
taking place after a breakage due to a updated dependency or a
realistically unpatchable vulnerability was discovered.

John
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

Adam Vande More
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:53 PM, John Marino <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Here's the issue I think some folks have:
>
> "Outdated": debatable.  If outdated means a newer release is available,
> then yes.  If "outdated" means it outlived its usefulness, I'd say no. This
> term seems subjectively used here.
>
> "prone to break": Perhaps, but it's not broken now.
>
> "possibly insecure":  I think this needs to be "known insecure" rather
> than holding it's last release date against it.


http://www.kde.org/info/security/advisory-20100413-1.txt

Probably other security issues as well.  I didn't have to look very long.
 In a codebase as large as KDE's, it seems a very slim chance indeed years
could go by without maintenance and still maintain security.



--
Adam Vande More
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

Kevin Oberman-3
On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Adam Vande More <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:53 PM, John Marino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Here's the issue I think some folks have:
>>
>> "Outdated": debatable.  If outdated means a newer release is available,
>> then yes.  If "outdated" means it outlived its usefulness, I'd say no. This
>> term seems subjectively used here.
>>
>> "prone to break": Perhaps, but it's not broken now.
>>
>> "possibly insecure":  I think this needs to be "known insecure" rather
>> than holding it's last release date against it.
>
>
> http://www.kde.org/info/security/advisory-20100413-1.txt
>
> Probably other security issues as well.  I didn't have to look very long.
>  In a codebase as large as KDE's, it seems a very slim chance indeed years
> could go by without maintenance and still maintain security.

I have a friend still happily using fvwm (not fvwm2). It is really,
really old, but it still works. It is not subject to deletion because
it still has a maintainer.

Being a maintainer of a port that is not in active development is
really not hard if you use it and can test it. I don't use KDE3, but
someone who does can certainly become maintainer and it won't go away.
If no one cares enough about keeping the port to take over
maintainership, "Say la vee". (For the record, the last real change to
fvwm was almost 4 years ago.)
--
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
E-mail: [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

Raphael Kubo da Costa-2
In reply to this post by Adam Vande More
Adam Vande More <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:53 PM, John Marino <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> "possibly insecure":  I think this needs to be "known insecure" rather
>> than holding it's last release date against it.
>
> http://www.kde.org/info/security/advisory-20100413-1.txt
>
> Probably other security issues as well.  I didn't have to look very long.
>  In a codebase as large as KDE's, it seems a very slim chance indeed years
> could go by without maintenance and still maintain security.

Additionally, I'd argue that it is hard for it to be "known insecure"
since upstream does not maintain it even for security vulnerabilities
anymore, so security problems have nowhere to be reported and
vulnerabilities common to KDE3 and KDE4 only get published and fixed in
the latter.

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

John Marino-4
On 1/8/2013 21:14, Raphael Kubo da Costa wrote:

> Adam Vande More<[hidden email]>  writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 12:53 PM, John Marino<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>> "possibly insecure":  I think this needs to be "known insecure" rather
>>> than holding it's last release date against it.
>>
>> http://www.kde.org/info/security/advisory-20100413-1.txt
>>
>> Probably other security issues as well.  I didn't have to look very long.
>>   In a codebase as large as KDE's, it seems a very slim chance indeed years
>> could go by without maintenance and still maintain security.
>
> Additionally, I'd argue that it is hard for it to be "known insecure"
> since upstream does not maintain it even for security vulnerabilities
> anymore, so security problems have nowhere to be reported and
> vulnerabilities common to KDE3 and KDE4 only get published and fixed in
> the latter.


This doesn't count?
http://cve.mitre.org/cve/
http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/search?execution=e2s1

It seems to be there is somewhere to report them...
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

Raphael Kubo da Costa-2
John Marino <[hidden email]> writes:

> On 1/8/2013 21:14, Raphael Kubo da Costa wrote:
>> Additionally, I'd argue that it is hard for it to be "known insecure"
>> since upstream does not maintain it even for security vulnerabilities
>> anymore, so security problems have nowhere to be reported and
>> vulnerabilities common to KDE3 and KDE4 only get published and fixed in
>> the latter.
>
> This doesn't count?
> http://cve.mitre.org/cve/
> http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/search?execution=e2s1
>
> It seems to be there is somewhere to report them...

The vulnerabilities disclosed in those places are normally published
after upstream has been contacted and come up with a fix for the
security issue, so I don't think the lack of new KDE3 advisories
compared to KDE4 ones means the former is safer.

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

Jakub Lach
I'm on the fence. It's true, that there is no low-print feature complete
equivalent for KDE3.

On the other hand, if nobody wants to maintain Trinity, well
it should be letten go, as sooner or later there will be problems.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

Mikhail T.-6
On 08.01.2013 19:02, Jakub Lach wrote:
> I'm on the fence. It's true, that there is no low-print feature complete
> equivalent for KDE3.
Worse, KDE4 is not only much heavier (which could've been acceptable).
It is also not compatible -- people like myself, who customized their
desktops with additional menus, who created knotes, etc. will have to
redo all of their settings. KDE4, as built, is not even going to look
under the ~/.kde. Though it can be compiled to consider the old
directory, the format/syntax for many of the config-files has changed --
and there is no "upgrade path".
> On the other hand, if nobody wants to maintain Trinity, well
> it should be letten go, as sooner or later there will be problems.
Before becoming "maintained", Trinity first needs to be ported -- a
substantial effort, because, for example, the project switched to its
own verstion Qt (Trinity Qt). All classes have been renamed from Qfoo to
TQfoo...

This can all be handled, but meanwhile, until there ARE actual problems,
leave the ports alone, please.

    -mi

_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

Jakub Lach
> tQT

Well, presumable to not use it with not maintained, old vanilla QT

In spite of not having 'proper' maintainer both kdelibs3/ and kdebas3/
saw substantial interest in form of patches, that indicates there are
more people who care about them, than those taking voice in this
thread...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Why delete KDE3 ports?

Adam Vande More
In reply to this post by Mikhail T.-6
On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Mikhail T. <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Worse, KDE4 is not only much heavier (which could've been acceptable).


This is simply not true, or at least easily remediable.  A few clicks leads
to nice UI experience with roughly the same amount of overheard as the 3.x
series.  There are a number of quasi-legit investigations into the matter.
 Regardless of those methodologies, at the end of the day KDE4 requires
only slightly more memory than 3 if at all.


> It is also not compatible -- people like myself, who customized their
> desktops with additional menus, who created knotes, etc. will have to redo
> all of their settings. KDE4, as built, is not even going to look under the
> ~/.kde. Though it can be compiled to consider the old directory, the
> format/syntax for many of the config-files has changed -- and there is no
> "upgrade path".


I don't use knotes, but have you tried the solution here?
http://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=84823


> This can all be handled, but meanwhile, until there ARE actual problems,
> leave the ports alone, please.


"Actual problems" have already been cited for it.  Fighting change can
often lead much more wasted effort than simply adjusting to modern
offerings.  It's easy enough to pull the port out of archive for the small
amount of users who will insist on using a deprecated DE with known
security issues.  I don't think it reflects well on the project to continue
to offer this as an option, and IMO at the very least needs to come with a
blinking red light disclaimer if the port continues to exist.

Jakub Lach:
> In spite of not having 'proper' maintainer both kdelibs3/ and kdebas3/ saw
substantial interest in form of patches

Not recently, unless you mean bulk patches for patches to options
framework, clang, or some other general change such as
http://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=297915


--
Adam Vande More
_______________________________________________
[hidden email] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[hidden email]"
12