[Bug 280189] sysutils/beadm-devel - beadm(1) possible deprecation?
- Reply: bugzilla-noreply_a_freebsd.org: "[Bug 280189] sysutils/beadm-devel - beadm(1) possible deprecation?"
- Reply: bugzilla-noreply_a_freebsd.org: "[Bug 280189] sysutils/beadm-devel - beadm(1) possible deprecation?"
- Reply: bugzilla-noreply_a_freebsd.org: "[Bug 280189] sysutils/beadm-devel - beadm(1) possible deprecation?"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2024 09:45:14 UTC
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=280189 Bug ID: 280189 Summary: sysutils/beadm-devel - beadm(1) possible deprecation? Product: Ports & Packages Version: Latest Hardware: Any OS: Any Status: New Severity: Affects Some People Priority: --- Component: Individual Port(s) Assignee: ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Reporter: erichanskrs@gmail.com CC: vermaden@interia.pl CC: vermaden@interia.pl Flags: maintainer-feedback?(vermaden@interia.pl) As per bug #254466, comment #20, I'm opening this PR here regarding https://www.freshports.org/sysutils/beadm https://www.freshports.org/sysutils/beadm-devel Also, trying to understand ports management: Who decides when and if a port gets deprecated and removed? What's the use case for not deprecating* https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/tree/sysutils/beadm-devel and, after an appropriate elapsed time removing it from the ports tree? No more confusion, less maintenance; perhaps I'm missing something here? ---- * The creator and maintainer (Slawomir Wojciech Wojtczak - vermaden) has responded in bug #254466, comment #6; and in bug #254466, comment #14: “I think that *sysutils/beadm-devel* can be deleted as it was not updated since 3 years ... ” last log entries https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/log/sysutils/beadm-devel indicate merely managerial changes. There is a current active and maintained version beadm(8) - by the same creator/maintainer: https://www.freshports.org/sysutils/beadm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.