Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:10:13 +0100 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: koobs@FreeBSD.org, marino@freebsd.org, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Martin Wilke <miwi.fbsd@gmail.com>, ports-committers@freebsd.org, "svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org" <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, "svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org" <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r407270 - head/ports-mgmt/portmaster Message-ID: <56A88975.7030601@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <56A8887B.7080906@FreeBSD.org> References: <201601261123.u0QBNcvL091258@repo.freebsd.org> <CAFY%2ByEkOv9-JaJv45WF-GzTxOiFh6k8sZ4rysUS5xTZs=rWNrA@mail.gmail.com> <56A86CAD.7030507@marino.st> <56A8747E.5080703@FreeBSD.org> <20160127081700.GA20812@FreeBSD.org> <56A87FCE.6080305@FreeBSD.org> <20160127084230.GA28230@FreeBSD.org> <56A88489.5020507@FreeBSD.org> <56A886AD.4070301@marino.st> <56A8887B.7080906@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 1/27/2016 10:06 AM, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > On 27/01/2016 7:58 PM, John Marino wrote: >> likely be phased out (assuming nothing changes) > > You added a 'likely' there that is different than the definition, which > eludes to 'active' phasing out. > > There is a gap between current state and what DEPRECATED implies. They > are not identical. > Anything deprecated has its days numbered, but I disagree that "active" is implied. Only if EXPIRATION_DATE is defined would that be reasonable. We have many ports that have indefinite DEPRECATION. It's a "use at your own risk" situation. Besides that, what's the practical difference between "active" and "eventual" ? The end result is the same, regardless if EXPIRATION_DATE is defined or not.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?56A88975.7030601>