Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 08:09:01 -0800 (PST) From: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org Ports" <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: The ports collection has some serious issues Message-ID: <1612160801490.3123@mx5.roble.com> In-Reply-To: <5c6df0ce-a473-d125-10a0-71b95a83512b@marino.st> References: <5c6df0ce-a473-d125-10a0-71b95a83512b@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> It is just semantics. That may be but as illustrated in this thread people maintain unreasonable expectations of portmaster which they often blame on the ports subsystem. > I never understood why people went ape-**** over it, unless they don't > understand what "deprecated without expiration" actually means. Perhaps then this is the crux of the issue. From my experience "deprecated" means only that something will not appear in a future version of the OS. It implies nothing about the suitability of the software itself. "deprecated without expiration" is a contradiction. > If Torsten drops maintainership then some sort of "strong" warning should > come with that drop. I would be satisfied with adding a descriptive > DEPRECATED message myself. TZ or no TZ we should drop the deprecation notice until it has an expiration date and clarify the warning terms (ASAP). At least that way, when a thread like this comes up in the future, the only response needed would be a pointer to the install message. Roger
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1612160801490.3123>