Andrew Berg wrote:
> On 2014.09.01 22:09, Michelle Sullivan wrote:
>> That's my point - there was a patch waiting to submit that knowingly
>> broke pkg_install at midnight on the day after the EOL... the EOL
>> shouldn't be an EOL - because it was really a 'portsnap after this date
>> before you upgrade and you're screwed it won't work any more at all...'
> As Peter outlined, this EOL was announced long ago, and it was mentioned at
> least once that it was to allow breaking changes. There really would be no
> reason to drop support for it in the ports tree if there were no plans to make
> changes.

The point is the EOL was not an EOL, it was a deadline, either switch or
you're screwed, and it was communicated as an EOL not as a "here's a
deadline, switch or you're screwed"

Michelle Sullivan

_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to ""

Reply via email to