Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 17:13:59 -0800 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net Makefile ports/net/asterisk14 Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist ports/net/asterisk14/files asterisk.sh.in codecnego-patch-Makefile dtmf_debug.diff ilbc_enable.diff nocodecnego-patch-Makefile patch-Makefile.rules ... Message-ID: <4EB9D3D7.8000009@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4EB877EF.3080902@FreeBSD.org> References: <201111072338.pA7NcnGG069162@repoman.freebsd.org> <4EB877EF.3080902@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/7/2011 4:29 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > Given that we already have 1.6 and 1.8 in ports, what's the value of > having this much older version? > > I didn't hear one single request to spare it when I deprecated it many > months ago, and it's been completely gone for over 3 weeks now. Have > users been asking for it to be returned? There is a reason why Digium still makes security releases of that software. And we still have 1.0 and 1.2 in the tree, so why not 1.4? IMHO, 1.4 should stay at least until 1.0 and 1.2 get booted. I know at least few other companies that use 1.4 heavily and if you take just Sippy Software we have around 100 production installations that use 1.4 around the globe, so you have a very motivated maintainer. Yes, we can keep it in our private tree, but I am pretty sure there is somebody out there who can benefit from this as well. -Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EB9D3D7.8000009>