Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 18:06:57 +1000 From: Dewayne Geraghty <dewayne@heuristicsystems.com.au> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: www/py-html5lib with FLAVOR=py27 failed to build Message-ID: <096cab5a-618f-c63b-8de0-3d2288033663@heuristicsystems.com.au> In-Reply-To: <a0ed4dcd-394a-df83-ca20-bd30cedbf1c7@FreeBSD.org> References: <200727140321.M0164414@mkii.yf.bsdclub.org> <40e880fb-efd1-5d2e-b03b-e2e9f7613754@freebsd.org> <a0ed4dcd-394a-df83-ca20-bd30cedbf1c7@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 27/07/2020 4:34 pm, Kubilay Kocak wrote: ). > > The strategy, plan and execution for deprecation of Python 2.7 and the > guidelines for deprecation and removal of Python 2.7 ports was not > coordinated with, discussed with or executed by the Python team, as it > should have been. > > The issues associated with this as well as the impact it has had on the > team, maintainers and and users has already been reported to core as one > set of example symptoms that form part of a broader report. > > Python is more than happy to address the issues associated with that > plan. I encourage and welcome interested developers, users, maintainers > who want to participate in improve the situation to join #freebsd-python > on freenode. > > > -- > koobs > @Python > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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" > Thank-you Stefan I couldn't agree more. I use security/w3af for web scanning and have pursued upstream, but it was zapped from the ports infrastructure around March. Koobs sharing the perspective of @python is very much appreciated. I recall a time when changes to a "port" was the responsibility of the maintainer. Unfortunately python2.7 dependent ports are removed or scheduled to be removed outside the actual python2.7 EOL window, which is rather inexplicable. The EOL tyranny is significantly detrimental to FreeBSD's reputation as many well used, and in some cases necessary ports do not have an upgrade to 3.X plan. And yes, we should apply pressure upstream, but taking the ports away isn't "user" friendly; sans there being a significant security issue. :) I lament new users who decide to build ports only to find that they've been removed or marked broken due to download relocation. I would've thought that a FreeBSD distribution site would retain and contribute to FreeBSD being a pleasurable experience. Sadly I digress.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?096cab5a-618f-c63b-8de0-3d2288033663>