> On Sep 2, 2014, at 4:47, Michelle Sullivan <michelle_at_sorbs.net> wrote: > > Marcus von Appen wrote: >> Alban Hertroys <haramrae_at_gmail.com>: >> >>> >>> I can totally understand that at some point it starts to get >>> impossible to maintain two separate packaging systems and I understand >>> that you think 2 years is enough time to shake things out, but >>> software vendors aren't that quick. For many, 2 years is a short time. >> >> It also should be noted that everyone had enough time to raise those >> issues >> in the time between tthe announcement and now. No one did. Now that it is >> gone, they are brought up, while they should have been long time ago >> instead. It can't work that way. >> >> My 2 cents in this discussion :-). > > Actually I brought it up as soon as I found the EOL was a deadline for > breaking pkg_* tools, was told, "too late now" - that was more than 2 > weeks ago, less than 2 months ago (forget the date) ... I'm happy with > an EOL and working to upgrade everything, I'm not happy that the EOL was > not actually an EOL and it was actually a deadline. Hi Michelle, One subtle point that I wanted to ask for clarification is you thought the EOL announcement for pkg_install was going to be "pkg_install is no longer going to be supported, but you can still use it", instead of "pkg_install support is going to be removed from the tree" -- is that correct? You'd probably hate to do this, but forking the sources and changing from portsnap to a git or svn backed ports tree that downloads a tarball snapshot might be the best resolution to this issue now... Thanks! -GarrettReceived on Tue Sep 02 2014 - 13:21:41 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:51 UTC