Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 00:35:00 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Martin_Waschb=C3=BCsch?= <martin@waschbuesch.de> To: FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PHP version retirement Message-ID: <6D3C0AF7-9AF0-4283-8B8B-314150C49CC1@waschbuesch.de> In-Reply-To: <MWHPR04MB04950619F07BE48AFDD2033B80D10@MWHPR04MB0495.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> References: <CF1F28D6-1072-4BE6-B124-A97DE43FA4E6@waschbuesch.de> <MWHPR04MB04950619F07BE48AFDD2033B80D10@MWHPR04MB0495.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Am 10.08.2019 um 12:53 schrieb Carmel NY <carmel_ny@outlook.com>: >=20 > On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 10:17:44 +0200, Martin Waschb=C3=BCsch stated: >> Would it not be better to have, say, the last two versions before >> current stable still in ports but with a huge disclaimer saying: use >> at your own risk, etc.? >>=20 >> What do y'all think? >>=20 >> Martin >=20 > If I might be allowed to interpolate, I believe that continuing to > expose obsolete versions of software in the 'ports' system is a bad > Idea. It is enabling the use of software, that for one reason or > another has been superseded by a newer and possibly safer or more > mature version. Following your argument, there should no longer be a port of e.g. gcc48 = in the ports tree as that, too, is no longer supported upstream. I am not saying old software should never be retired, but the end of = upstream support as the *only* criteron for removal from ports tree does = not sound like a good idea to me. > Usually, when a version or application is going to be removed from the > 'ports' system, it is duly noted well in advance. I would recommend > that we set a hard number, say 6 months or one year at max before said > software is removed. That should give even the most procrastinating > user ample time to render his/her system ready for that inevitability. > It they have not accomplished that with the set time frame, they > probably were never serious about doing it. >=20 > Just my 2=C2=A2. >=20 > --=20 > Carmel What happened here was: A port was updated to the last release upstream was going to publish, = and *very* shortly afterwards removed from ports because support ended = with said release. In the case of PHP 5.6 it was not even the last release. PHP 5.6 was = removed from ports before the final upstream release. I think that a fixed time *after* the last upstream release would have = been a sensible solution.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6D3C0AF7-9AF0-4283-8B8B-314150C49CC1>