From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sat Aug 10 22:35:07 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4AECC6CF3 for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 22:35:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from martin@waschbuesch.de) Received: from relay02.waschbuesch.it (relay02.waschbuesch.it [IPv6:2a00:cba0:100::232]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "*.waschbuesch.it", Issuer "COMODO RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 465cPQ1tX2z4Byb for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 22:35:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from martin@waschbuesch.de) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=waschbuesch.de; s=dkim; h=Message-Id:In-Reply-To:To:References:Date:Subject :Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:From:Sender:Reply-To:Cc: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=qtRy+Z131sj6JwtzLGOTUZZTqdTNPCxzyppGFK5mMJk=; b=JjtPQCWE/P+sdQfi0Qj1+6g3Vo T8rFOVicueM/YmNBz9FvZ9lDufX4KyA5Lo/uP7oY52vnUVkxNIHqtYjKvdU5nbFt1sqTqwufa3zF0 ltC8/9wRvWxKwD58Hkeye9rcVdLRbJ42OcPYKx1ZQlSIYDWK3C61A2hoq4tk7wpg/iz8=; Received: by relay02.waschbuesch.it with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim) (envelope-from ) id 1hwZwz-00035N-8V for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 22:35:01 +0000 From: =?utf-8?Q?Martin_Waschb=C3=BCsch?= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\)) Subject: Re: PHP version retirement Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 00:35:00 +0200 References: To: FreeBSD Ports In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <6D3C0AF7-9AF0-4283-8B8B-314150C49CC1@waschbuesch.de> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 465cPQ1tX2z4Byb X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=waschbuesch.de header.s=dkim header.b=JjtPQCWE; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=waschbuesch.de; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of martin@waschbuesch.de designates 2a00:cba0:100::232 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=martin@waschbuesch.de X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.07 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[waschbuesch.de:s=dkim]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; RCVD_DKIM_ARC_DNSWL_MED(-0.50)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED(-0.20)[2.3.2.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.1.0.0.a.b.c.0.0.a.2.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.2]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[waschbuesch.de:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[waschbuesch.de,none]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.86)[-0.864,0]; RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; IP_SCORE(-0.00)[country: DE(-0.01)]; ASN(0.00)[asn:21476, ipnet:2a00:cba0::/32, country:DE]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2019 22:35:07 -0000 > Am 10.08.2019 um 12:53 schrieb Carmel NY : >=20 > On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 10:17:44 +0200, Martin Waschb=C3=BCsch stated: >> Would it not be better to have, say, the last two versions before >> current stable still in ports but with a huge disclaimer saying: use >> at your own risk, etc.? >>=20 >> What do y'all think? >>=20 >> Martin >=20 > If I might be allowed to interpolate, I believe that continuing to > expose obsolete versions of software in the 'ports' system is a bad > Idea. It is enabling the use of software, that for one reason or > another has been superseded by a newer and possibly safer or more > mature version. Following your argument, there should no longer be a port of e.g. gcc48 = in the ports tree as that, too, is no longer supported upstream. I am not saying old software should never be retired, but the end of = upstream support as the *only* criteron for removal from ports tree does = not sound like a good idea to me. > Usually, when a version or application is going to be removed from the > 'ports' system, it is duly noted well in advance. I would recommend > that we set a hard number, say 6 months or one year at max before said > software is removed. That should give even the most procrastinating > user ample time to render his/her system ready for that inevitability. > It they have not accomplished that with the set time frame, they > probably were never serious about doing it. >=20 > Just my 2=C2=A2. >=20 > --=20 > Carmel What happened here was: A port was updated to the last release upstream was going to publish, = and *very* shortly afterwards removed from ports because support ended = with said release. In the case of PHP 5.6 it was not even the last release. PHP 5.6 was = removed from ports before the final upstream release. I think that a fixed time *after* the last upstream release would have = been a sensible solution.=