From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 29 17:11:07 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9A7F16A4CF for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:11:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpout.mac.com (smtpout.mac.com [17.250.248.83]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95F6F43D49 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:11:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from mac.com (smtpin02-en2 [10.13.10.147]) by smtpout.mac.com (8.12.6/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id i5THAsCY022803; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:10:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.1.193] (nfw2.codefab.com [199.103.21.225] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0)i5THArT9008485; Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:10:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <34706.1088497708@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <34706.1088497708@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <46A7D8A4-C9EF-11D8-99F8-003065ABFD92@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Charles Swiger Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:10:52 -0400 To: Poul-Henning Kamp X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618) cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADSUP: ibcs2 and svr4 compat headed for history X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 17:11:07 -0000 On Jun 29, 2004, at 4:28 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <40DF2607.5020409@mac.com>, Chuck Swiger writes: >> In other words, I care quite a bit about how "working, supported >> functionality" gets transitioned to "no longer available". I'm not >> happy with >> the notion of "supported" -> "HEADS UP" -> one week -> gone. > > I don't think anybody would be happy with that, and that is not what > was proposed in this case. OK. While I thought your original "HEADS UP" was clear, perhaps you had a less abrupt transition plan in mind. If you suggested that the ibcs/svr4 compatibility stuff should be marked depreciated for 5.3, and give people until 5.4 time find someone willing to do maintenance for the code, or give someone time to move this functionality to ports, or find some other alternative, that might receive more positive feedback. > The future of ibcs2 and svr4 has been in doubt for a long time (and > still is pending developer attention), but appearantly most of the > previous discussion and warnings have not been noticed: [ ...cvs annotate... ] > Searching the major mailing lists (bugs, stable, current etc) failed > to return any hits about this. End-users may not read /usr/src/UPDATING or the published release notes either, but at least those are the places they are _expected_ to look at if they want to know what is changing. I don't think we can reasonably expect an end-user to look though the output of "cvs annotate"... :-) -- -Chuck