Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 08:39:31 -0800 (PST) From: Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> To: marino@freebsd.org Cc: "ports@FreeBSD.org Ports" <ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: The ports collection has some serious issues Message-ID: <1612160831390.3123@mx5.roble.com> In-Reply-To: <a0c196df-0663-1de1-4cc6-7a4ecf207246@marino.st> References: <5c6df0ce-a473-d125-10a0-71b95a83512b@marino.st> <1612160801490.3123@mx5.roble.com> <a0c196df-0663-1de1-4cc6-7a4ecf207246@marino.st>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Marino wrote: > From porters handbook, section 12.15: > "It is possible to set DEPRECATED without an EXPIRATION_DATE (for instance, > recommending a newer version of the port) I'd consider that to be a bug. > So it's not a contradiction. Ports that have a specific removal date must > have EXPIRATION_DATE set. If you say, well DEPRECATION implies removal, I'd > agree, but it's at an indefinite time and I'd say that time would come when > portmaster no longer works on the current ports tree. When that happens (and > it probably will happen) then EXPIRATION can be set. Non-standard uses of the term "deprecated" are problematic from a usability perspective. Since there is currently no deprecation messages (apologies for the misunderstanding, I haven't used portmaster) at least (TZ) add an install-time WARNING so we can avoid misleading potential portmaster users (and related mailing lists threads/topics). IMO, Roger
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1612160831390.3123>