Andrew Berg wrote: > On 2014.09.01 22:09, Michelle Sullivan wrote: > >> That's my point - there was a patch waiting to submit that knowingly >> broke pkg_install at midnight on the day after the EOL... the EOL >> shouldn't be an EOL - because it was really a 'portsnap after this date >> before you upgrade and you're screwed it won't work any more at all...' >> > As Peter outlined, this EOL was announced long ago, and it was mentioned at > least once that it was to allow breaking changes. There really would be no > reason to drop support for it in the ports tree if there were no plans to make > changes. > The point is the EOL was not an EOL, it was a deadline, either switch or you're screwed, and it was communicated as an EOL not as a "here's a deadline, switch or you're screwed" -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/Received on Tue Sep 02 2014 - 01:30:14 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:51 UTC