Re: Removing Kerberos IV support

[David Holland <dholland-pkgtech%netbsd.org@localhost>]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 02:23:13PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
 > > Why don't we mark it BROKEN now (for this coming branch), delete krb4
 > > whenever, and remove it after the next branch if nobody fixes it? I
 > > don't expect anyone will but you never know.
 > 
 > Right now, with krb4, I think it works.   So it's really
 > marking-broken/deleting when krb4 is removed.

Well, saying it's broken because it depends on krb4 seems perfectly
reasonable :-)

But, since the goal is to summon anyone who's actually using it,
marking it broken early seems like a better approach. Of course,
updating it seems better still.

 > It seems we are leaning to removal rather than marking BROKEN for things
 > that aren't super likely to get fixed, because the history is there
 > anyway and in this case the new upstream version of zephyr has changed a
 > fair bit anyway.

Once it's removed, it gets forgotten, though. So I guess in general it
depends on the extent to which we care whether it never comes back.
And I suppose in this case while zephyr used to be fairly important,
it probably isn't any more. Does it still get used to any extent at
MIT?

-- 
David A. Holland
dholland%netbsd.org@localhost