It makes me sad to look at how changes in recent years FreeBSD - not for the better. New packages - it's good. But! Stable packages replaced by new unstable version - this is wrong.
Thanks for taking your time on me. 2014-08-25 21:26 GMT+04:00 John Marino <[email protected]>: > 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]"
