Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 22:23:12 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Michael Scheidell <scheidell@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PHP 5.4.0 : lang/php54 Message-ID: <4FC45D40.4060200@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4FBA6FEB.1000706@quip.cz> References: <CA%2BdUSyp2ztuZdCocnpNCgf-h%2BJO4zMMFEMi_xrm8nbwQ2W9How@mail.gmail.com> <CADLo83_-UOWSc_suztjLBk0xYu_wu1TSN29Nwarn=nsFRv_TFQ@mail.gmail.com> <4FBA618A.1050707@freebsd.org> <20120521155736.GA79323@DataIX.net> <4FBA6FEB.1000706@quip.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/21/2012 9:40 AM, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > I think that the best will be to not have any default "php5" port and > just use php52, php53, php54, php5X, php60... as we have apache20, > apache22, apache24, or mysql50-server, mysql51-server, mysql55-server. > > There is no default apache2 or mysql5-server, so there is no confusion > what is / what will be installed. > > Then it can be choosed in make.conf what version will be used as > default, similar to WITH_MYSQL_VER=51 or APACHE_PORT=www/apache22 I have been advocating for this for years. IMO we shouldn't have *any* unversioned ports for things that have multiple simultaneous versions supported. I've actually done this for the things I support (most notably bind*) for a long time, and have never had a single user complaint. OTOH, the user confusion, broken systems, and generally huge amount of hassle caused by moving the default version of an important port like php to one that isn't compatible with the previous default only has downsides. In the days when the total number of ports, and the number of versioned ports, were both much smaller, the idea of a "default" version made sense. Neither has been true for a decade or more. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4FC45D40.4060200>