From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Sep 28 1:52:41 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.74]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC83437B408; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 01:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mindspring.com (dialup-209.245.138.226.Dial1.SanJose1.Level3.net [209.245.138.226]) by falcon.mail.pas.earthlink.net (8.11.5/8.9.3) with ESMTP id f8S8qa122087; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 01:52:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3BB43A84.34F8E732@mindspring.com> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 01:53:24 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Reply-To: tlambert2@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Chadd Cc: ports@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: closing down the squid22/23 ports? References: <20010927205912.E4232@roaming.cacheboy.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Adrian Chadd wrote: > I'd like to look at closing down / making inactive the squid22 and > squid23 ports. The squid-2.2 and squid-2.3 codebases have been > inactive and largely unsupported by the squid developers (read: myself > inclusive here) for some time now, and I'd like to point users > at the actively developed/maintained squid branch. > > Squid-2.5 is also in the pipeline for release soon, and I don't think > there is a point in having 4 squid ports. > > What do people think? You might want to check out which versions infringe which patents... I think the oldest port doesn't infringe any, but the newer ports infringe about 8 of them from IBM. IBM made us rip squid out of the InterJet before we ever shipped with it because of this. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message