svn commit: r351326 - head/Mk

[Bryan Drewery]

On 4/15/2014 8:12 AM, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> On 4/15/2014 8:07 AM, John Marino wrote:
>> On 4/15/2014 15:00, Bryan Drewery wrote:
>>> On 4/15/2014 7:49 AM, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
>>>> Author: bapt
>>>> Date: Tue Apr 15 12:49:46 2014
>>>> New Revision: 351326
>>>> URL: http://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/351326
>>>> QAT: https://qat.redports.org/buildarchive/r351326/
>>>>
>>>> Log:
>>>>   Register deprecation and expiration in packages
>>>>
>>>
>>> This will require bumping PORTREVISION for DEPRECATED and EXPIRE_DATE
>>> changes, resulting in a 100% useless rebuild.
>>>
>>> It would be much better to not have this in the packages at all and only
>>> in the repo.
>>
>> I think this conclusion depends on individual interpretation.
>> Did the installed binary change?  No, so no bump needed.  Does the pkg
>> internal database contents change?  yes.  Does that require a bump?
>>
>> That depends on how vital the information is.
>> If it's considered "nice to have" and people can live with it only
>> coming in when the PKGNAME changes, then no bump is required.  If the
>> lack of transparency on DEPRECATION is considered a real issue (and sure
>> many people do believe this) then yes, a bump would be needed to get it
>> visible.
>>
[...]
> 
> Otherwise needing a PORTREV bump can lead to the user not knowing if it
> is forgotten.
> 
> 

And yes I see this as mission critical information to deliver to the
user. I hate that we deprecate and remove things. I am willing to accept
it if the user is aware of the pending doom though. Right now they have
no clue or way to find out this information and are astonished (POLA)
when their package no longer installs.

-- 
Regards,
Bryan Drewery

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 553 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-all/attachments/20140415/cdd4edd6/attachment.sig>