> On Aug 29, 2020, at 20:33, Mark Linimon <lini...@lonesome.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2020 at 06:50:22PM -0600, Adam Weinberger wrote: >> the problem is that we abuse the BROKEN variable. Ports that don't >> adapt aren't necessarily broken (unless they no longer build and are >> actually broken). We have a habit of using BROKEN to mean "someone >> should take a look at this." Perhaps we need a better way of >> signifying this. > > Hmm, I though that was what DEPRECATED was for?
The semantics are a little different. There’s nothing to differentiate things that we have confidently deprecated, vs things that we’d like people to please take a look at before we give up on it. I think part of the resistance to marking things for expiration is that we lump “this no longer has a purpose” in with “please give this some TLC or we’ll let it go.” # Adam — Adam Weinberger ad...@adamw.org https://www.adamw.org _______________________________________________ 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"
