On 2020-08-04 20:43, Steve Wills wrote: > We welcome any constructive feedback. All input would be heard, and if the > plans need to be amended, we will come back to you with the amended plan in a > couple of weeks. This process will take some time and hopefully won't be too > disruptive to anyone's usual workflow.
As a total random user with no direct role in the ports life, except than being portsnap user, may I suggest that the "removal" may be instead a "replace" of the portsnap binary with a script or whatever that runs the "new-standard-method"? I mean, it took me ages to learn portsnap fetch and portsnap update, if I run them as usual I wouldn't care at all if behind the scenes it's doing a svn update, a git fetch or whatever you choose. I've been bitten hard by nslookup removal in the past year being done the hard way while a gentle "factory built-in" alias nslookup = host/dig/whatever would have saved me a lot of cursings... Thanks. --- Andrea Brancatelli _______________________________________________ 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"
