On 2 September 2014 13:30, Michelle Sullivan <miche...@sorbs.net> wrote:

> 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
> http://www.mhix.org/
>

The point is the EOL was *actually* an EOL: a deadline, either switch or
you're screwed, and it was communicated as an EOL: a "here's a
deadline, switch or you're screwed"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to