On Tue, 5 Dec 2017 13:48:12 -0600 "Mark Linimon" <lini...@lonesome.com> said
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 08:42:27AM -0800, Chris H wrote:
> IMHO it might be a good idea to make a legacy branch, in the ports
> tree before gutting the pre-NG stuff.
Good lord, people.
The pre-NG stuff has Left The Building. It is not coming back.
The last (even trivial) revision to the pkg_* codebase was Mon Aug 19
14:04:35 2013 UTC:
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=revision&revision=254525
The corresponding bsd.port.mk version was:
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=revision&revision=324051
For comparison:
ports is currently at r455604 [*]
USES= had recently been introduced at r313517 Wed Mar 6 14:28:57
2013 UTC (4 years, 9 months ago)
options handling had recently been reworked at r321785 Wed Jun 26
07:22:06 2013 UTC (4 years, 5 months ago)
LIB_DEPENDS had recently been reworked at r322328 Fri Jul 5 14:10:55
2013 UTC (4 years, 5 months ago) by bapt
staging came in at r327910 Mon Sep 23 05:56:35 2013 UTC (4 years,
2 months ago)
the warning about pkg_* EOL was r342537 Tue Feb 4 14:23:08 2014
UTC (3 years, 10 months ago)
and I'm not going to iterate over all the refactoring and bug-
fixing since that time.
(Most likely, pkg_* was not thoroughly tested since early 2013, so I've
included the first 4 big reworks above.)
If you want to look at the diffs to bsd.port.mk since the last time pkg_*
was even trivially maintained:
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports/head/Mk/bsd.port.mk?r1=324051&r2=455280
The diff is 5528 lines. It's unreadable.
If you're staying with pkg_*, you're basically saying "I don't mind
running with something that hasn't really been QAed with those 5528 lines
of changes."
IMVVHO: madness.
I really don't have anything more I can say on the matter.
mcl
* Because I'm now annoyed, I'm going to do some math:
455604 - 324051 = 131553
That's over One. Hundred. Thousand. Ports. Commits. Ago.
That's 7 pages of commits to bsd.port.mk itself, per svnweb.
OK now that just makes me look like an idiot. You cite me, then
trim the only redeeming part of my reply.
Now I'm annoyed. ;)
The sensible side of me also agrees that this is probably a reasonable,
and efficient approach. But the practical side says there will likely
be some screaming on the mailing lists, once this change lands.
You see. Like you, I *too* can be sensible. :)
--Chris
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
