On 2 September 2014 13:30, Michelle Sullivan <michelle_at_sorbs.net> wrote: > 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/ > The point is the EOL was *actually* an EOL: a deadline, either switch or you're screwed, and it was communicated as an EOL: a "here's a deadline, switch or you're screwed"Received on Tue Sep 02 2014 - 08:25:20 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:51 UTC