On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 07:24:39PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> I don't see any major problem keeping as much as 2-years worth of
> packages around. Security issues do crop up but from the point
> of view of someone having to make the choice between spending
> 5 minutes adding an
I don't see any major problem keeping as much as 2-years worth of
packages around. Security issues do crop up but from the point
of view of someone having to make the choice between spending
5 minutes adding an older version of a package verses potentially
a day upgrading the e
On Wed, September 23, 2009 6:26 am, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> It is really bad to keep around packages we don't build anymore, because
> they get outdated and accumulate security problems. And we don't have
> the resources to keep building packages.
>
> I think we should keep around what
Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
It is really bad to keep around packages we don't build anymore, because
they get outdated and accumulate security problems. And we don't have
the resources to keep building packages.
I think we should keep around what we can build for at the moment, and
not
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:26:31PM +0200, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> Vincent Stemen wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:05:40 -0400 (EDT), Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
>>> Since 2.4 is out, and we'll have binary pkgsrc packages for it soon, the
>>> 2.0 packages are due to be removed. If this wil
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 12:26:31PM +0200, Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
>
> It is really bad to keep around packages we don't build anymore,
> because they get outdated and accumulate security problems. And we
> don't have the resources to keep building packages.
>
> I think we should keep ar
Vincent Stemen wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:05:40 -0400 (EDT), Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
Since 2.4 is out, and we'll have binary pkgsrc packages for it soon, the
2.0 packages are due to be removed. If this will cause you trouble,
please speak up.
The plan is to keep packages for the current r
On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 09:05:40 -0400 (EDT), Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
> Since 2.4 is out, and we'll have binary pkgsrc packages for it soon, the
> 2.0 packages are due to be removed. If this will cause you trouble,
> please speak up.
>
> The plan is to keep packages for the current release (2.4) an
On Tue, September 22, 2009 10:00 am, Jordan Gordeev wrote:
>>
> Who is gonna be hurt if 2.0 packages remain available?
>
"Current + previous release" is the plan for keeping the packages around;
at some point they are not useful any more, and this plan gives them a
year of life. We can extend thi
Jordan Gordeev wrote:
Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
Since 2.4 is out, and we'll have binary pkgsrc packages for it soon, the
2.0 packages are due to be removed. If this will cause you trouble,
please speak up.
The plan is to keep packages for the current release (2.4) and the
previous release (2.
Justin C. Sherrill wrote:
Since 2.4 is out, and we'll have binary pkgsrc packages for it soon, the
2.0 packages are due to be removed. If this will cause you trouble,
please speak up.
The plan is to keep packages for the current release (2.4) and the
previous release (2.2), which gives us a bi
Since 2.4 is out, and we'll have binary pkgsrc packages for it soon, the
2.0 packages are due to be removed. If this will cause you trouble,
please speak up.
The plan is to keep packages for the current release (2.4) and the
previous release (2.2), which gives us a binary package retention schedu
12 matches
Mail list logo
