From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Aug 25 19:41:58 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF480FDF; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from shepard.synsport.net (mail.synsport.com [208.69.230.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1371342B; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:41:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.22] (unknown [130.255.19.191]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by shepard.synsport.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC02C43BE3; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:41:38 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <53FB9161.1040800@marino.st> Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:41:21 +0200 From: John Marino Reply-To: marino@freebsd.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Rees , zlopi , marino@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Return ports www/sams References: <53FB5C74.2010409@physics.org> <53FB620A.1040603@marino.st> <53FB67B9.9040003@marino.st> <53FB6FE7.90701@ohlste.in> <53FB71B4.4090703@marino.st> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:41:59 -0000 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 @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 : > > 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* , and is > believed to be clean.