Date: Sat, 09 Mar 2013 22:13:11 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?UmVuw6kgTGFkYW4=?= <rene@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [cfr] patch to clean up old Linux ports Message-ID: <513BA5E7.40802@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <513B3D0E.2030603@passap.ru> References: <513A0C04.8090907@freebsd.org> <20130309121625.00004279@unknown> <513B2CB3.1020405@passap.ru> <20130309141403.0000340e@unknown> <513B3D0E.2030603@passap.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09-03-2013 14:45, Boris Samorodov wrote: > 09.03.2013 17:14, Alexander Leidinger пишет: >> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 16:36:03 +0400 >> Boris Samorodov <bsam@passap.ru> wrote: >>> 09.03.2013 15:16, Alexander Leidinger пишет: >>> >>>> The EoL announcement made it clear that ports need to be marked >>>> broken if they don't work on 7, so it means the generic ports >>>> framework has no hard "doesn't work" (yet). >>> >>> As I understand the announcement, those "ports should be marked >>> broken", etc. should be done at RELENG_7_EOL tag. Otherwise there is >>> no sense at EOL itself. >> >> BROKEN is used to announce as soon as possible that it will not work, >> whereas e.g. a compile error on 7 could manifest it self after a long >> time of compiling something. >> >> Think also about those people which don't know that 7 is EoL, but still >> run portsnap. At one point they may want to install a port and then it >> fails. If there's no message what's wrong (the system needs to be >> updated), they may spend a lot of time to search the cause of the >> problem. With a little helpful message they know directly. > > I agree that a message (well, BROKEN or something else) should be > used to inform a user. But that may be done via one check/file. > Be it at bsd.ports.mk, bsd.linux.mk, etc. Why should HEAD track > individual ports for 7.x after EOL? And when should 7.x actually > be cleaned fro the portstree? There is no any other date for 7.x. > > OK, for those who continue use 7.x RELENG_7_EOL has been created. > And those ports committers who are interested in ports for 7.x > may use portstree with that particular tag. As well as those > users who continue to use FreeBSD 7.x. > I strongly attend to agree with Boris here. If we want to continue warning 7.X users for a while (1,6,12 months?) then it should both be much clearer and easier to just put a conditional IGNORE in bsd.port.mk than in thousands of individual (not only Linux) ports. Rene
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?513BA5E7.40802>