On 8/25/2014 19:18, Jim Ohlstein wrote: > Not for nothing, but since PHP 5.3 is still in the ports tree, then why > delete ports that depend on it? I know PHP 5.3 has now reached EOL, but > there is probably still a fair amount of legacy code which breaks with > PHP 5.4. I'm not advocating using it, but some people have no choice. If > people want it in the ports tree and they understand the risks, > shouldn't it be their choice?
When it was deleted, the port claimed that it *only* worked with PHP4. It was only after the deletion that somebody said it would work with 5.3. At that point we weren't bringing back an long-time unmaintained port for a PHP that is probably itself on it's way out. Unmaintained at the ports level *and* upstream. If these users really want to accept risk, they can always put a copy of www/sams locally in their tree. www/sams2 is supposed to work with PHP 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5. Until I hear why it's not a suitable replacement for an unmaintained sams, I don't understand why this discussion is happening at all. John _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
