From owner-freebsd-pkg@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 2 15:21:41 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: pkg@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72C59BD7; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:21:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B13015D5; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:21:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id kq14so15024840pab.37 for ; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:21:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=RM0DjhXDiVwKblsuCnkr+SD80Xp9nHM663HDvxNEklI=; b=C6zwB5DytJX4sv4cw3f3OSJ9SCHNbSCAROLxtuK00Pbik24wdN8UsA3D2u/SoFKbI0 PZ6UNtoB4SqZo3cGjob9QxyF+arivOw9WQj4vOWeqkHvCZ8y55CvA4QKT9jT+C9Vr87k +MBMBYKPk6nSbcySyqmPV96LyZ4s5xOFfHa+ka9JGTdag3WIuPX4HzSNAoD83Vmr+5Tk BzVFnufPOpfDBq3ZHwe3cVR2GqqYXmLqCycaenPSxXk4fA8N9KFmfD7Svnptgaj3JaZR xhpa/4tKvb36rJ0iWbbWwZxN0gMY70tpJ9ih3V82Q7ag1Bdy0PrVHs+4IOHYiTCwve2T lzZQ== X-Received: by 10.70.91.208 with SMTP id cg16mr48085651pdb.91.1409671300627; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:21:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.20.11] (c-98-247-240-204.hsd1.wa.comcast.net. [98.247.240.204]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id fn4sm12257960pab.39.2014.09.02.08.21.39 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:21:39 -0700 (PDT) References: <20140901195520.GB77917@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <54050D07.4010404@sorbs.net> <540522A3.9050506@sorbs.net> <54052891.5000104@my.hennepintech.edu> <54052DFA.4030808@freebsd.org> <54053372.6020009@my.hennepintech.edu> <5405890F.8080804@freebsd.org> <20140902125256.Horde.uv31ztwymThxUZ-OYPQoBw1@webmail.df.eu> <5405AE54.60809@sorbs.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <5405AE54.60809@sorbs.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1D2B4A91-E76C-43A0-BE75-D926357EF1AF@gmail.com> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (11D257) From: Garrett Cooper Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 08:21:38 -0700 To: Michelle Sullivan Cc: "ports@freebsd.org" , "pkg@freebsd.org" , "stable@freebsd.org" , "current@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-pkg@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Binary package management and package tools discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:21:41 -0000 > On Sep 2, 2014, at 4:47, Michelle Sullivan wrote: >=20 > Marcus von Appen wrote: >> Alban Hertroys : >>=20 >>>=20 >>> I can totally understand that at some point it starts to get >>> impossible to maintain two separate packaging systems and I understand >>> that you think 2 years is enough time to shake things out, but >>> software vendors aren't that quick. For many, 2 years is a short time. >>=20 >> It also should be noted that everyone had enough time to raise those >> issues >> in the time between tthe announcement and now. No one did. Now that it is= >> gone, they are brought up, while they should have been long time ago >> instead. It can't work that way. >>=20 >> My 2 cents in this discussion :-). >=20 > Actually I brought it up as soon as I found the EOL was a deadline for > breaking pkg_* tools, was told, "too late now" - that was more than 2 > weeks ago, less than 2 months ago (forget the date) ... I'm happy with > an EOL and working to upgrade everything, I'm not happy that the EOL was > not actually an EOL and it was actually a deadline. Hi Michelle, One subtle point that I wanted to ask for clarification is you thought t= he EOL announcement for pkg_install was going to be "pkg_install is no longe= r going to be supported, but you can still use it", instead of "pkg_install s= upport is going to be removed from the tree" -- is that correct? You'd probably hate to do this, but forking the sources and changing fro= m portsnap to a git or svn backed ports tree that downloads a tarball snapsh= ot might be the best resolution to this issue now... Thanks! -Garrett=