Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:08:11 -0600 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>, ports@freebsd.org, Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pkgng 1.0 release schedule, and HEAD switch to pkgng by default schedule Message-ID: <BEB6B05A-2D96-488C-AD78-3E0DD561E485@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <5033E6BA.8080309@FreeBSD.org> References: <20120820194313.GC23607@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20120821132643.GE37262@felucia.tataz.chchile.org> <20120821134623.GH5044@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <5033D0C0.4030805@FreeBSD.org> <CAGH67wS3jGTh-=b4X%2Bto9B67=_wpfHVqTNVYK-WZ-yVNz7gepQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120821190500.GA46595@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <5033E39C.3060700@FreeBSD.org> <20120821194208.GC46595@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <5033E6BA.8080309@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:51 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 8/21/2012 12:42 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 12:38:04PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: >>> On 8/21/2012 12:05 PM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: >>>> 1/ if it fits the schedule: get rid of pkg_* tools in current >>>> to be able to have a fully pkgng only 10-RELEASE >>>=20 >>> I think it would fit better with historic precedents to make pkg=20 >>> optional (but default on) in 10, and mandatory in 11. As stated=20 >>> before, I'm fine with removing pkg_* tools from 10 if there is >>> robust support for them in the ports tree. >>>=20 >>> I know you're excited about this project, but let's not lose >>> sight of how big a change this is, and how important ports are to >>> the project. >>>=20 >> That was what "if it fits the schedule" was about. >=20 > I think what I'm trying to say, ever so politely, is that what you're > suggesting isn't even an option, so it shouldn't be discussed. If you are fine with removing them if there's robust support, how can = you also be suggesting that it is impossible and shouldn't be talked = about? Personally, I think we should handle this the same way that other = replacement tools have been done, which is close to what Baptiste has = proposed. If the new tools are totally awesome, we have replaced old = tools. If the new tools are good, but don't cover the older users, we = develop along size. If they are lame, but somehow get committed anyway, = we take 18 years to replace them with bsdinstall. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BEB6B05A-2D96-488C-AD78-3E0DD561E485>