Date: 31 Dec 2002 01:35:06 -0500 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-questions-local@be-well.no-ip.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: do we have to wait for PHP 4.3 port? Message-ID: <44fzsewvad.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <002b01c2b08d$7eac8cf0$3224200a@me3> References: <20021230194818.A18495@mail.hitmedia.com> <3E11152B.2050401@mac.com> <003d01c2b081$b5bedf10$3224200a@me3> <441y3y4ybi.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <002b01c2b08d$7eac8cf0$3224200a@me3>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Brian" <bri@sonicboom.org> writes: > Because ports are really config files to obtain and install other peoples > software. Ports that would be deemed critical to system operation, like > perl, I could see freezing those. But all ports? The number of ports that are mission-critical to *somebody* numbers in the hundreds, perhaps thousands. You were asking about PHP; to risk shipping an official FreeBSD release without a full release process on the PHP port would be negligent. > BTW I'd love to see > sendmail and named removed from the installs and moved to ports/packages > only. Lots of people say that, but no one's done the work yet. It's a *huge* amount of work, if you think about it: being able to deliver daily reports is a critical function, and while most systems don't need named, other essential resolver tools can't be easily separated from the rest of BIND. But this has all been covered before, at great length; if you're interested in taking the task on, see the mailing list archives. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44fzsewvad.fsf>