From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 9 03:15:23 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx2.freebsd.org (mx2.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::35]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB70A106564A; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 03:15:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from 172-17-198-245.globalsuite.net (hub.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::36]) by mx2.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5351314E347; Wed, 9 Nov 2011 03:15:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4EB9F04A.6020003@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:15:22 -0800 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://SupersetSolutions.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20111001 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Maxim Sobolev References: <201111072338.pA7NcnGG069162@repoman.freebsd.org> <4EB877EF.3080902@FreeBSD.org> <4EB9D3D7.8000009@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4EB9D3D7.8000009@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: undefined OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 ... X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: **OBSOLETE** CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2011 03:15:24 -0000 On 11/08/2011 17:13, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > 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'm only seeing 1.0, but in any case I don't see this as a reason to go in the wrong direction. :) However ... > 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. ... this sounds perfectly reasonable. Thanks for the explanation. Doug -- "We could put the whole Internet into a book." "Too practical." Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/