Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:41:21 +0200 From: John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st> To: Chris Rees <crees@physics.org>, zlopi <zlopi.ru@gmail.com>, marino@freebsd.org Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Return ports www/sams Message-ID: <53FB9161.1040800@marino.st> In-Reply-To: <baa3640f-bb70-4fed-b4b4-53208a10ba8a@email.android.com> 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> <CAN8qoOSrmMPPBVzwD4ETHUtE%2BzzJXz8Q=HUksvBHn0=DU_8%2BkQ@mail.gmail.com> <baa3640f-bb70-4fed-b4b4-53208a10ba8a@email.android.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8/25/2014 21:39, Chris Rees wrote: > Hi John, > > It seems to me that this might have been better just put in as an update > to www/sams. Both the new maintainer and upstream wanted it called www/sams2 and did not want it to use the same portname. > > Zlopi, please would you try out sams2 and let us know if it just works > the same? That could render this whole discussion pointless! Please wait about 30 minutes, I have an important update brewing. John > > Chris > > On 25 August 2014 19:56:11 BST, zlopi <zlopi.ru > <http://zlopi.ru>@gmail.com>; wrote: > > 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 > > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is > believed to be clean.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53FB9161.1040800>