On 2025/05/09 21:05, Lydia Sobot wrote: > > out of curiosity, why did you settle for this particular fork? > > it doesn't seem to be super active > > https://codeberg.org/redict/redict/commits/branch/main > No particular reason except that it seemed decently maintained to me > > >> I used the UID/GID for Redis for Redict in users.list > > > > I guess this is fine since I doubt people will want to have both at the > > same time. Not sure if they should conflict. > Ok, but does that mean that Redict should run under the username _redis?
Should use a different uid. Personally I'd go with valkey rather than redict, since they kept the original BSD license, and have quite widespread support/active development. > > Unless you mean I didn't update the ports tree to the 7.X branch (or > > even the 8.x branch now). But in which case, I haven't heard any > > compelling arguments to do so (which I'd like to have since I don't > > think "newer is better" applies here). > I am way out of my depth, but why does "newer is better" not apply here > for you? As far as I am concerned, we should try to at least offer the > newest version of ports in the tree by default, even as just another > flavour We already have the newest version of the BSD-licensed 6.x branch. The free-of-charge licenses for newer branches are unsuitable for some use cases. If there is some important reason to have a newer branch then maybe it would be worth having parallel versions in ports, but I'd like to see something specific not just "it's newer".
