Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:26:12 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Jim Ohlstein <jim@ohlste.in>, marino@freebsd.org, zlopi <zlopi.ru@gmail.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Chris Rees <crees@physics.org> Subject: Re: Return ports www/sams Message-ID: <53FB71B4.4090703@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <53FB6FE7.90701@ohlste.in> References: <CAN8qoOQOkJRiMh1E4fa_t1BReGyY=gA_seakE9aixcOPumrBLw@mail.gmail.com> <53FB5C74.2010409@physics.org> <53FB620A.1040603@marino.st> <CAN8qoOSRxY61152VJguPZBaB5w7CPg5eDOMnxCzuaVKCkZoO=g@mail.gmail.com> <53FB67B9.9040003@marino.st> <53FB6FE7.90701@ohlste.in>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/25/2014 19:18, Jim Ohlstein wrote: > Not for nothing, but since PHP 5.3 is still in the ports tree, then why > delete ports that depend on it? I know PHP 5.3 has now reached EOL, but > there is probably still a fair amount of legacy code which breaks with > PHP 5.4. I'm not advocating using it, but some people have no choice. If > people want it in the ports tree and they understand the risks, > shouldn't it be their choice? When it was deleted, the port claimed that it *only* worked with PHP4. It was only after the deletion that somebody said it would work with 5.3. At that point we weren't bringing back an long-time unmaintained port for a PHP that is probably itself on it's way out. Unmaintained at the ports level *and* upstream. If these users really want to accept risk, they can always put a copy of www/sams locally in their tree. www/sams2 is supposed to work with PHP 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5. Until I hear why it's not a suitable replacement for an unmaintained sams, I don't understand why this discussion is happening at all. John
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53FB71B4.4090703>