Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 22:58:43 -0600 From: Adam Weinberger <adamw@adamw.org> To: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@freebsd.org>, Stefan Esser <se@freebsd.org>, Niclas Zeising <zeising@freebsd.org>, Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Developers <developers@freebsd.org>, tcberner@freebsd.org, ports@freebsd.org, portmgr@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Aggressive ports removal (was: svn commit: r546907 - head/x11-clocks/wmtime) Message-ID: <C6928CB2-16C8-4006-B4AE-F4FCD966273E@adamw.org> In-Reply-To: <20200830023352.GA14065@lonesome.com> References: <20200830023352.GA14065@lonesome.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Aug 29, 2020, at 20:33, Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> wrote: >=20 > =EF=BB=BFOn Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 06:50:22PM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: >> the problem is that we abuse the BROKEN variable. Ports that don't >> adapt aren't necessarily broken (unless they no longer build and are >> actually broken). We have a habit of using BROKEN to mean "someone >> should take a look at this." Perhaps we need a better way of >> signifying this. >=20 > Hmm, I though that was what DEPRECATED was for? The semantics are a little different. There=E2=80=99s nothing to differentia= te things that we have confidently deprecated, vs things that we=E2=80=99d l= ike people to please take a look at before we give up on it. I think part of= the resistance to marking things for expiration is that we lump =E2=80=9Cth= is no longer has a purpose=E2=80=9D in with =E2=80=9Cplease give this some T= LC or we=E2=80=99ll let it go.=E2=80=9D # Adam =E2=80=94 Adam Weinberger adamw@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C6928CB2-16C8-4006-B4AE-F4FCD966273E>