On 2014.09.01 21:27, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > Actually it's an inconvenience for someone like me and you. Not for > many freebsd users, and certainly not for me 6 months ago if I hadn't > been writing my own ports.... oh and what was it, 1.3.6 -> 1.3.7? broke > shit... (badly) ... There were instructions for upgrading 1.3.6 to 1.3.7 alongside a notice that things would not be good if the instructions were not followed and an explanation of the issue. I think these kinds of notices need to reach more people, but of course, that is easier said than done. BTW, from what I have observed, 1.3.x issues have affected Poudriere users the most, binary package users a bit less (but still significantly), and pure ports users very little.
>> Also, 9.3 is out and the 9.2 EOL is not far away. Not sure why you would be >> doing a new install with 9.2. >> > Try getting yourself a FreeBSD server at Softlayer... They still > install 7.x for Christ's sake (amongst others - but last time I checked, > on new servers, 8.4, 9.0, 9.1, 10.0*) Fair enough. > (not had time - because an EOL message is not a 'It will not > work after this date' message it is a 'you're unsupported after this > date and things *might* not work as expected' No, it means "we're not supporting this any more, so we don't care if there are new vulnerabilities or things stop working". I'm not going to dictate to other people what their upgrade schedule should be, but anyone running unsupported versions of software should not have any expectation that the ecosystem around it will be accommodating. The ports tree already requires a lot work to make sure everything works on supported versions of FreeBSD, and I see no reason whatsoever for anyone to put effort into making it work on EOL versions. _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"