From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 3 08:47:05 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EA601065670; Tue, 3 May 2011 08:47:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from itetcu@FreeBSD.org) Received: from worf.ds9.tecnik93.com (worf.ds9.tecnik93.com [81.196.207.130]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F788FC08; Tue, 3 May 2011 08:47:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from User-PC (unknown [81.181.146.246]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by worf.ds9.tecnik93.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 293B722C5563; Tue, 3 May 2011 11:47:04 +0300 (EEST) Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 11:46:58 +0300 From: Ion-Mihai Tetcu To: utisoft@gmail.com Message-Id: <20110503114658.34c48b67.itetcu@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: References: <4DBD0B40.8010101@users.sf.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.3 (GTK+ 2.10.14; i686-pc-mingw32) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: freebsd-multimedia@freebsd.org, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Peter Jeremy , mato Subject: Re: expiration of net/skype ?! X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 May 2011 08:47:05 -0000 On Sun, 1 May 2011 17:31:11 +0100 Chris Rees wrote: > On 1 May 2011 08:26, mato wrote: > > Chris Rees wrote: > >> Mato wrote: > >> > Ok, from my understanding it wouldn't be the first time a port distf= ile > >> > is not (easily) available yet the port itself works if one can get t= he > >> > distfile. =A0And it's very easy to search successfully the interwebs= for this > >> > particular distfile. =A0In such a case I see no reason to remove the= port if > >> > it works (under condition one gets the distfile). =A0I myself have i= t (and I > >> > even host it privately). =A0And reading mailing lists reveals there = are many > >> > people using the port. > >> > > >> > >> If one is capable of finding a distfile it's a trivial addition to find > >> the port. > >> > >> Rather than having defective ports in the tree, perhaps you could host= the > >> Skype shar? With a decent title it'll probably show up early enough on= a > >> Google search. > >> > >> Chris > >> > > > > That is one of possibilities. =A0The question is whether we want to low= er > > barriers for new / common users or not. =A0Experience suggests that peo= ple > > will choose a different solution if it makes their life easier. =A0See = my > > other recent post please. > > >=20 > Unfortunately, until the port is updated this will not be 'undeprecated'. >=20 > It is not general policy to allow manual fetches unless a seriously > major (ie Java) component requires it. Skype does not fit that mould; > there are plenty of viable alternatives. There are other too (all of them annoying for me as a user), and there is not problem with this. But that is the upstream policy about distributing those distfiles -- we don't require users to google and find copies somewhere on the web. > I'm not trying to brush you off; I'm just pointing out that the > Project will not deliberately breach licensing conditions to make things We don't break them for any reason. > easier for new users, neither is there a 'probably broken' part of the > Ports tree -- the closest thing to a different repo is a separate tree, > for example [1]. >=20 > Chris >=20 > [1] http://code.google.com/p/freebsd-texlive/ Anyway, work is underway to fully support newer skype versions, and the biggest part of the work in our linuxulator was done. Again, if you want skype, go on skype's forums and bug them about supporting FreeBSD or at least OSS suport. This being a binary product, there's very little we can realy do when somethign goes wrong. --=20 Ion-Mihai Tetcu