From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jun 15 22:49:18 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CF56D5B; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:49:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hades.sorbs.net (hades.sorbs.net [67.231.146.201]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 263E12A47; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:49:17 +0000 (UTC) MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Received: from isux.com (firewall.isux.com [213.165.190.213]) by hades.sorbs.net (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7.0.5.29.0 64bit (built Jul 9 2013)) with ESMTPSA id <0N7800H0TCROPK00@hades.sorbs.net>; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 14:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-id: <539E14DA.3030004@sorbs.net> Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 23:49:14 +0200 From: Michelle Sullivan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100301 SeaMonkey/1.1.19 To: Matthew Seaman Subject: Re: ports/189880: port pgpool-II out of date. References: <201405170220.s4H2K0G0085365@freefall.freebsd.org> <538D0AAE.7090800@sorbs.net> <20140615111101.GM2341@home.opsec.eu> <539DA4F3.2060004@sorbs.net> <20140615142903.GQ2341@home.opsec.eu> <539DB9DD.3050603@FreeBSD.org> <20140615161122.GB2586@home.opsec.eu> <539DCCBD.7090405@FreeBSD.org> In-reply-to: <539DCCBD.7090405@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Kurt Jaeger , freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 22:49:18 -0000 Matthew Seaman wrote: > On 15/06/2014 17:11, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> >>> Heh. I was just starting to look at writing a pgpool-II-33 port, but it >>> seems you have beaten me to it. >>> >> Well, and you provided a thorough review, thanks for that! >> >> Now, who's in charge to merge all your recommendations ? Michelle ? >> > > I'll happily work on getting this port committed -- certainly ping me > for technical review etc. But I don't want to steal it from you if > you're keen to deal with committing it, or to take the port away from > Michelle given the work she's already put into it. > I did it because I needed it ;-) - if you want to help me (this is actually the first port I had done) I'm all for that... I just wanted my email address in the ports tree for the spammers ;-) > >>>>>> Second step: merging the diverse set of pgpool related ports into one ? >>>>>> >>>>> Maybe pg-pool-II and pg-pool-devel...? (3.1/2 in stable and 3.3 in >>>>> devel - until it changes?) >>>>> >>> pgpool-II has 3 stable releases at the moment 3.1.10, 3.2.8, 3.3.3 >>> which are all still receiving updates. >>> >> Do you think that all three are still used by the ports users community ? >> > > Well, to be pedantic about it: precisely one of those versions is in use > by ports users, as those other ports don't exist yet. Whether there's a > demand for ports of all of those pgpool-II versions, or we should just > skip to the latest, is the real question. > Personally I think: databases/pgpool (3.1.x) databases/pgpool-devel (3.3.x) > Given the lack of history in the ports, I'd say lets just skip > pgpool-II-3.2 Agreed. (effectively already done) > and upgrade the existing pgpool-II port to > pgpool-II-3.3.3. The older pgpool-II ports (and pgpool-I for that > matter) could probably be deprecated now with a longish (say 6 month) > expiry time, but that's something for kuriyama@ to decide. > Personally - pgpool-II (3.1.6) and pgpool-II-devel (3.3.3+ - and 3.4 when it comes out) There is reason to keep the last version of pgpool-I ... but move it to pgpool-I (or pgpool-v2) and mark it as 'no further developement' (as I think that's true) > I don't think there's any particular reason to have ports of all the > different pgpool-II branches in tree, BICBW. If there are major bits of > functionality dropped or changed incompatibly between those branches, > then obviously we'd have to reconsider. > > +1 -- Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/