From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Fri Dec 16 16:16:33 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 766C2C8076C for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:16:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61EF3136C for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:16:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 614A4C8076B; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:16:33 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F05C8076A for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:16:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from shepard.synsport.com (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3E90A136B for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:16:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd.contact@marino.st) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ip72-204-83-236.fv.ks.cox.net [72.204.83.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE9243C38; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:15:23 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: The ports collection has some serious issues To: Roger Marquis References: <5c6df0ce-a473-d125-10a0-71b95a83512b@marino.st> <1612160801490.3123@mx5.roble.com> Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org Ports" From: John Marino Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org Message-ID: Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 10:16:31 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1612160801490.3123@mx5.roble.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 161216-0, 12/16/2016), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 16:16:33 -0000 On 12/16/2016 10:09, Roger Marquis wrote: >> 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. From porters handbook, section 12.15: "It is possible to set DEPRECATED without an EXPIRATION_DATE (for instance, recommending a newer version of the port), but the converse does not make any sense." So it's not a contradiction. Ports that have a specific removal date must have EXPIRATION_DATE set. If you say, well DEPRECATION implies removal, I'd agree, but it's at an indefinite time and I'd say that time would come when portmaster no longer works on the current ports tree. When that happens (and it probably will happen) then EXPIRATION can be set. > >> 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. Which notice should we drop? There's no DEPRECATION set now. There's no warning set. portmaster is not marked as "deprecated". And as the handbook points out: You can't have EXPIRATION without DEPRECATED, but it's perfectly legal to have the reverse. It's documented clearly. John --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus