[cfr] patch to clean up old Linux ports

[René Ladan]

On 09-03-2013 14:45, Boris Samorodov wrote:
> 09.03.2013 17:14, Alexander Leidinger пишет:
>> On Sat, 09 Mar 2013 16:36:03 +0400
>> Boris Samorodov <bsam at passap.ru> wrote:
>>> 09.03.2013 15:16, Alexander Leidinger пишет:
>>>
>>>> The EoL announcement made it clear that ports need to be marked
>>>> broken if they don't work on 7, so it means the generic ports
>>>> framework has no hard "doesn't work" (yet).
>>>
>>> As I understand the announcement, those "ports should be marked
>>> broken", etc. should be done at RELENG_7_EOL tag. Otherwise there is
>>> no sense at EOL itself.
>>
>> BROKEN is used to announce as soon as possible that it will not work,
>> whereas e.g. a compile error on 7 could manifest it self after a long
>> time of compiling something.
>>
>> Think also about those people which don't know that 7 is EoL, but still
>> run portsnap. At one point they may want to install a port and then it
>> fails. If there's no message what's wrong (the system needs to be
>> updated), they may spend a lot of time to search the cause of the
>> problem. With a little helpful message they know directly.
> 
> I agree that a message (well, BROKEN or something else) should be
> used to inform a user. But that may be done via one check/file.
> Be it at bsd.ports.mk, bsd.linux.mk, etc. Why should HEAD track
> individual ports for 7.x after EOL? And when should 7.x actually
> be cleaned fro the portstree? There is no any other date for 7.x.
> 
> OK, for those who continue use 7.x RELENG_7_EOL has been created.
> And those ports committers who are interested in ports for 7.x
> may use portstree with that particular tag. As well as those
> users who continue to use FreeBSD 7.x.
> 
I strongly attend to agree with Boris here. If we want to continue
warning 7.X users for a while (1,6,12 months?) then it should both be
much clearer and easier to just put a conditional IGNORE in bsd.port.mk
than in thousands of individual (not only Linux) ports.

Rene