From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Aug 25 18:56:12 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C471CB6;
 Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:56:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-pa0-x22f.google.com (mail-pa0-x22f.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22f])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com",
 Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK))
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2B223EC1;
 Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:56:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-pa0-f47.google.com with SMTP id kx10so21714291pab.20
 for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :cc:content-type;
 bh=y8es4+z1lg5Jd/Y8pOov2/tFqmTVpPlZ74suC6ER/AM=;
 b=IwPVNIUW0E8RyRrjUsoemU2Ny1LYIA5bCvbpLZHOy52teaHDGDMG5n9T4fkVEdhR+e
 hhwKv3mSwMgrqn1WeeZ7glDpbhuOa3CBRdE5y4GjLoHk9tWUbEUm7VXQdbcMgpWi9y4W
 9KRBWbsh9wceZ3A3kvRHyeupwghnFiC63I6lSELWk7LyWGr+Q8n5g9VYvqVY4DCBTm4B
 aC9sbCyyzFJCsXvTjvCDLSsF4Zb6R7H5+qZ4ACmc06Rw30K4aDVxHVhf9JNGrxA6rCwJ
 GbjspiEgcRGPII4jvGT+Fy7NV2BHINLLXaKRW7JFxDIBaLM4zp10wnWGwyufVCwmTpIM
 2liQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.68.57.232 with SMTP id l8mr22572485pbq.79.1408992971378;
 Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.70.94.104 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53FB71B4.4090703@marino.st>
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>
 <53FB71B4.4090703@marino.st>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:56:11 +0400
Message-ID: <CAN8qoOSrmMPPBVzwD4ETHUtE+zzJXz8Q=HUksvBHn0=DU_8+kQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Return ports www/sams
From: zlopi <zlopi.ru@gmail.com>
To: marino@freebsd.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Chris Rees <crees@physics.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:56:12 -0000

It makes me sad to look at how changes in recent years FreeBSD - not
for the better.
New packages - it's good. But! Stable packages replaced by new
unstable version - this is wrong.

Thanks for taking your time on me.

2014-08-25 21:26 GMT+04:00 John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st>:
> 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