[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.