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.
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to