Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:15:22 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-ports@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, ports-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/net Makefile ports/net/asterisk14 Makefile distinfo pkg-descr pkg-plist ports/net/asterisk14/files asterisk.sh.in codecnego-patch-Makefile dtmf_debug.diff ilbc_enable.diff nocodecnego-patch-Makefile patch-Makefile.rules ... Message-ID: <4EB9F04A.6020003@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <4EB9D3D7.8000009@FreeBSD.org> References: <201111072338.pA7NcnGG069162@repoman.freebsd.org> <4EB877EF.3080902@FreeBSD.org> <4EB9D3D7.8000009@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 11/08/2011 17:13, Maxim Sobolev wrote: > On 11/7/2011 4:29 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >> Given that we already have 1.6 and 1.8 in ports, what's the value of >> having this much older version? >> >> I didn't hear one single request to spare it when I deprecated it many >> months ago, and it's been completely gone for over 3 weeks now. Have >> users been asking for it to be returned? > > There is a reason why Digium still makes security releases of that > software. And we still have 1.0 and 1.2 in the tree, so why not 1.4? > IMHO, 1.4 should stay at least until 1.0 and 1.2 get booted. I'm only seeing 1.0, but in any case I don't see this as a reason to go in the wrong direction. :) However ... > I know at least few other companies that use 1.4 heavily and if you take > just Sippy Software we have around 100 production installations that use > 1.4 around the globe, so you have a very motivated maintainer. ... this sounds perfectly reasonable. Thanks for the explanation. Doug -- "We could put the whole Internet into a book." "Too practical." Breadth of IT experience, and depth of knowledge in the DNS. Yours for the right price. :) http://SupersetSolutions.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4EB9F04A.6020003>