Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 14:43:12 -0700 From: Chris <portmaster@bsdforge.com> To: "Dan Mahoney (Ports)" <freebsd@gushi.org> Cc: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com>, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Python 2.7 removal outline Message-ID: <afeb4816aacdc027c88678022b4ffaf9@bsdforge.com> In-Reply-To: <14A27037-4174-4708-9AE3-16D599076639@gushi.org> References: <20210324130347.GA29020@freefall.freebsd.org> <10693816.1udYB6hd2u@ravel> <20210325150320.f74kx2uor4dwl5y5@aniel.nours.eu> <feba494f-b1ea-5bbe-0457-1c85ab08041a@quip.cz> <3c1821a8-0afb-f27c-05d4-6ad0cf577f2a@m5p.com> <alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.2103261347370.85788@aneurin.horsfall.org> <20210326154426.7c7079f2@gumby.homeunix.com> <8552dddf3bc33e42ae124cd4ea53fb4f@bsdforge.com> <14A27037-4174-4708-9AE3-16D599076639@gushi.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2021-03-26 12:19, Dan Mahoney (Ports) wrote: > More thoughts on mailman, specifically: > > So, I just went to find an old FB post I made about mailman 2.x: > > === > From the "Load Bearing B****it" department: > Pretty much the entire world is stuck using an EOL'd mailing list manager > (mailman > 2.x), which depends on an EOL'd python (2.7). > This includes: > * All the gnu mailing lists > * All of the linux mailing lists at listman.redhat > * all the FreeBSD mailing lists > * all the sourceforge mailing lists > * all the IETF mailing lists > * all of lists.isc.org > * NANOG > === > > That’s an AWFUL LOT of sysadmins, network admins, and coders who looked long > and > hard at Mailman 3 and decided “that’s not ready yet”. > > I think, if *nothing else*, tauthon needs to be stapled in for mailman, even > if it > lives under /usr/local/mailman/bin or something (and bakes in the couple of > dependencies). I *fully* concur. In fact, at least 2 ports that I maintain added a depends on tauthon. Which really raised my ire hearing it's intended doom announcement. :( Honestly. If something "just works", isn't a "security risk". Than don't fix it! --Chris > > I know about the archive incompatibility. There *might* be a GSOC project > to fix > it. Maybe. Other changes can happen with greater use, but clearly there’s > a > first-mover disadvantage here. > > -Dan > >> On Mar 26, 2021, at 9:06 AM, Chris <portmaster@bsdforge.com> wrote: >> >> On 2021-03-26 08:44, RW via freebsd-ports wrote: >>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2021 13:55:33 +1100 (EST) >>> Dave Horsfall wrote: >>>> On Thu, 25 Mar 2021, George Mitchell wrote: >>>> >> [...] it is really not for everybody to use overlays in current >>>> >> state (overlays are poor documented at least). [...] >>>> > >>>> > Until this thread I had never heard of them. -- >>>> > George >>>> I can't remember the last time I used overlays (certainly with CP/M); >>>> I didn't know that FreeBSD even supported them (why bother when >>>> you've got VM?). >>> I doubt that meaning of overlay is going to be relevant. I'd not heard >>> of it either, but from looking in ports/Mk/ it seems to be a way of >>> modifying port builds. >> As I understand it. It allows you to graft out-of-tree ports/versions >> onto the ports-tree-proper. >> >> --Chris >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list >>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?afeb4816aacdc027c88678022b4ffaf9>