Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 10:12:17 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> To: Shane Ambler <FreeBSD@ShaneWare.Biz> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Reorganization of the py-sqlalchemy ports Message-ID: <60835507-d000-c05b-79ae-9d086edeb9a5@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <573E99F7.8050308@ShaneWare.Biz> References: <03d3359e-0c33-76e2-5059-8d9caaab832e@FreeBSD.org> <20160518220434.2652aa635577c95c30767045@freebsd.org> <c7bbc67f-ad20-947b-3900-55b5a713c2b0@FreeBSD.org> <573E99F7.8050308@ShaneWare.Biz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --sJl7eaUfkT9eWNtQXuNFuUsxTHO0iVlHu Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="J0vxxb267Tnu5slXlrI7Rfq6DuC0dfmHP" From: Matthew Seaman <matthew@freebsd.org> To: Shane Ambler <FreeBSD@ShaneWare.Biz> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Message-ID: <60835507-d000-c05b-79ae-9d086edeb9a5@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Reorganization of the py-sqlalchemy ports References: <03d3359e-0c33-76e2-5059-8d9caaab832e@FreeBSD.org> <20160518220434.2652aa635577c95c30767045@freebsd.org> <c7bbc67f-ad20-947b-3900-55b5a713c2b0@FreeBSD.org> <573E99F7.8050308@ShaneWare.Biz> In-Reply-To: <573E99F7.8050308@ShaneWare.Biz> --J0vxxb267Tnu5slXlrI7Rfq6DuC0dfmHP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 05/20/16 06:00, Shane Ambler wrote: > Having a look at bsdstats.org they show port install numbers of >=20 > py27-sqlalchemy 9 > py27-sqlalchemy06 147 > py27-sqlalchemy08 1 >=20 > It may be worth considering keeping 0.6 for compatibility and drop 0.7,= > 0.8, 0.9 Having so many ports depend on something that is no-longer supported up-stream is not a good idea, As I said, working out what the dependency requirements are for all those ports is something that will need to happen as the next step in this project. I see no need to hold up this first stage because of that -- with the reorganised sqlalchemy ports in place, each of the dependency ports can be examined independently and updated separately. If it does turn out that significant numbers of ports really do only work with sqlalchemy 0.6.x (which I doubt, but I have no empirical data on either) then that port can be de-expired easily enough. Cheers, Matthew --J0vxxb267Tnu5slXlrI7Rfq6DuC0dfmHP-- --sJl7eaUfkT9eWNtQXuNFuUsxTHO0iVlHu Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJXPtTyAAoJEABRPxDgqeTnN9EP/3MJ9TYAdr7Ay2dmLWaBAtf+ Yvy+d6i2tLn+EiMqObws0Og29jGzOa0xwu99lr1iPVLusUD30/PdW8wVykMGT6c2 sGOtw1OZNgAvRjPfUwfaLXPEiK7twP4dji1oYi4ixphxScHH+k8DCeFL3F+fkF5P HDu9QChFNsP5bzDm5aT0gnbQiAmuFwF3xxwtiYOZ0uj1pzz4Sj0xlCIJDd0Lwgi2 x3DRHCdqYfKK6sR+LCCzcKxxJopyHmILndsbYOTF+5hfOVyP9Mde8aYlJGOt163d +fa7bUot1SahuslMh9D/HzTcaUPR1pANG3dmMh6UX3UwEpvSXOeEv7BOL3dtMTbJ /IhjK/Cdg01GbqLpr4JqQ1ytL9EZANnvdHD34revBvY1gYCDraxyDc3pyCvEgpQd MrbkyZyynvFB07N9H6Ij/MtZrfuRSeC5Ya9a9t1h/aNhH1xB5qZC5av45HAnc6cd djcghpgYhZReXpa3NqO+aaCjzdlE9+4zx6EaRo+Xchk0mm0V+HpUeJfEZx52XqwR SYtQkpHxxTi1cCyOflIdu4toLVNX3KnJT2w2+b8nHvCYS4e/N/C4UJhWx8MbHRve 3uH4nQuVveUoYVYiqU4c9Z0xcnQelyp4zvKXq7HppAjYgOH7sKqrTfVPk/HoiSN6 CgdlF0rhvMs8nV6NnAw4 =CLVn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sJl7eaUfkT9eWNtQXuNFuUsxTHO0iVlHu--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?60835507-d000-c05b-79ae-9d086edeb9a5>