> On Sep 2, 2014, at 4:47, Michelle Sullivan <miche...@sorbs.net> wrote:
> Marcus von Appen wrote:
>> Alban Hertroys <haram...@gmail.com>:
>>> I can totally understand that at some point it starts to get
>>> impossible to maintain two separate packaging systems and I understand
>>> that you think 2 years is enough time to shake things out, but
>>> software vendors aren't that quick. For many, 2 years is a short time.
>> It also should be noted that everyone had enough time to raise those
>> in the time between tthe announcement and now. No one did. Now that it is
>> gone, they are brought up, while they should have been long time ago
>> instead. It can't work that way.
>> My 2 cents in this discussion :-).
> Actually I brought it up as soon as I found the EOL was a deadline for
> breaking pkg_* tools, was told, "too late now" - that was more than 2
> weeks ago, less than 2 months ago (forget the date) ... I'm happy with
> an EOL and working to upgrade everything, I'm not happy that the EOL was
> not actually an EOL and it was actually a deadline.
One subtle point that I wanted to ask for clarification is you thought the
EOL announcement for pkg_install was going to be "pkg_install is no longer
going to be supported, but you can still use it", instead of "pkg_install
support is going to be removed from the tree" -- is that correct?
You'd probably hate to do this, but forking the sources and changing from
portsnap to a git or svn backed ports tree that downloads a tarball snapshot
might be the best resolution to this issue now...
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"