From owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org  Wed Jan 27 09:10:18 2016
Return-Path: <owner-svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: svn-ports-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED02A6E63C;
 Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:10:18 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st)
Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BCBF1554;
 Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:10:17 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st)
Received: from [192.168.1.21] (248.Red-83-39-200.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net
 [83.39.200.248])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D12A43BB9;
 Wed, 27 Jan 2016 03:10:15 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: svn commit: r407270 - head/ports-mgmt/portmaster
To: koobs@FreeBSD.org, marino@freebsd.org, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org>
References: <201601261123.u0QBNcvL091258@repo.freebsd.org>
 <CAFY+yEkOv9-JaJv45WF-GzTxOiFh6k8sZ4rysUS5xTZs=rWNrA@mail.gmail.com>
 <56A86CAD.7030507@marino.st> <56A8747E.5080703@FreeBSD.org>
 <20160127081700.GA20812@FreeBSD.org> <56A87FCE.6080305@FreeBSD.org>
 <20160127084230.GA28230@FreeBSD.org> <56A88489.5020507@FreeBSD.org>
 <56A886AD.4070301@marino.st> <56A8887B.7080906@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: Martin Wilke <miwi.fbsd@gmail.com>, ports-committers@freebsd.org,
 "svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org" <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>,
 "svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org" <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>
Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org
From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st>
Message-ID: <56A88975.7030601@marino.st>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:10:13 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56A8887B.7080906@FreeBSD.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: svn-ports-head@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree for head
 <svn-ports-head.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/svn-ports-head>, 
 <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-head/>
List-Post: <mailto:svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-ports-head>,
 <mailto:svn-ports-head-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:10:18 -0000

On 1/27/2016 10:06 AM, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> On 27/01/2016 7:58 PM, John Marino wrote:
>> likely be phased out (assuming nothing changes)
> 
> You added a 'likely' there that is different than the definition, which
> eludes to 'active' phasing out.
> 
> There is a gap between current state and what DEPRECATED implies. They
> are not identical.
> 

Anything deprecated has its days numbered, but I disagree that "active"
is implied.  Only if EXPIRATION_DATE is defined would that be
reasonable.  We have many ports that have indefinite DEPRECATION.  It's
a "use at your own risk" situation.

Besides that, what's the practical difference between "active" and
"eventual" ?  The end result is the same, regardless if EXPIRATION_DATE
is defined or not.