Re: HEADSUP: ibcs2 and svr4 compat headed for history

Charles Swiger wrote:
> On Jun 29, 2004, at 4:28 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> 
>> In message <40DF2607.5020409_at_mac.com>, Chuck Swiger writes:
>>
>>> In other words, I care quite a bit about how "working, supported
>>> functionality" gets transitioned to "no longer available".  I'm not 
>>> happy with
>>> the notion of "supported" -> "HEADS UP" -> one week -> gone.
>>
>>
>> I don't think anybody would be happy with that, and that is not what
>> was proposed in this case.
> 
> 
> OK.  While I thought your original "HEADS UP" was clear, perhaps you had 
> a less abrupt transition plan in mind.
> 
> If you suggested that the ibcs/svr4 compatibility stuff should be marked 
> depreciated for 5.3, and give people until 5.4 time find someone willing 
> to do maintenance for the code, or give someone time to move this 
> functionality to ports, or find some other alternative, that might 
> receive more positive feedback.

 From what I have understood so far is that ibcs/svr4 already *is* broken
in 5-CURRENT.  However it does seem to work sufficiently well in 4-STABLE.

Effectively it doesn't make any difference if it is removed now or later.
The option to turn it into a maintained port, should indeed some step up
to do that, is given regardless of removing it from stock 5-CURRENT right
now.  The code does not disappear, it is in attic for anyone to look at.

 From this perspective there is no compelling reason to hinder PHK from
removing ibcs/svr4 from stock 5-CURRENT on next weekend, *unless* someone
firmly commits himself until end of the week to fix those problems/bugs
in ibcs/svr4 for 5-CURRENT to make it work again (at least as well as in
4-STABLE).

Maybe the condition for removing it, is that at the same time he must move
into a port that is marked broken right from the start.

-- 
Andre