From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 2 11:47:37 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BDAB1BA; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:47:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hades.sorbs.net (hades.sorbs.net [67.231.146.201]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D36214BE; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:47:36 +0000 (UTC) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from isux.com (firewall.isux.com [213.165.190.213]) by hades.sorbs.net (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.29.0 64bit (built Jul 9 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <0NB90030JVLPSK00@hades.sorbs.net>; Tue, 02 Sep 2014 04:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-id: <5405AE54.60809@sorbs.net> Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 13:47:32 +0200 From: Michelle Sullivan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100301 SeaMonkey/1.1.19 To: mva@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [HEADSUP] pkg(8) is now the only package management tool 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> In-reply-to: <20140902125256.Horde.uv31ztwymThxUZ-OYPQoBw1@webmail.df.eu> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, pkg@freebsd.org, stable@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 11:47:37 -0000 Marcus von Appen wrote: > Alban Hertroys : > >> >> 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. >> > > 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. > > My 2 cents in this discussion :-). 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. -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/