svn commit: r407270 - head/ports-mgmt/portmaster

[John Marino]

On 1/27/2016 10:06 AM, Kubilay Kocak wrote:
> On 27/01/2016 7:58 PM, John Marino wrote:
>> likely be phased out (assuming nothing changes)
> 
> You added a 'likely' there that is different than the definition, which
> eludes to 'active' phasing out.
> 
> There is a gap between current state and what DEPRECATED implies. They
> are not identical.
> 

Anything deprecated has its days numbered, but I disagree that "active"
is implied.  Only if EXPIRATION_DATE is defined would that be
reasonable.  We have many ports that have indefinite DEPRECATION.  It's
a "use at your own risk" situation.

Besides that, what's the practical difference between "active" and
"eventual" ?  The end result is the same, regardless if EXPIRATION_DATE
is defined or not.