On 2011-04-27 17:59, Mikhail T. wrote: > On -10.01.-28163 14:59, Robert Huff wrote: >> It is also possible it is only important to a fairly small >> number ... but to those it is absolutely crucial. > Or the port might become useful/essential/critical to somebody in the > future... > > What is not broken -- just old, like databases/db2 or www/apache13*, for > example -- should be left alone (until it becomes both broken and > unmaintained). > And even then, the removal should not be mass-scale/automatic...
What are you missing in the db2 implementation of FreeBSD which is in the OS and maintained by the OS developers? For myself I see the apache13 EOL with a whining and a laughing eye, and can understand if users don't want to upgrade to 22/24 because of complex and working configurations. But I also look at the future development of the OS and environment where such old dinosaur should see a ice time to make room for new live. Within the apache13/20 deprecation also other ports will go since they are not compatible with newer apache version. For anyone interested I've done a quick grep over my local build logs to get a list of ports which depends on apache13/20 http://people.freebsd.org/~ohauer/diffs/apache_ports/apache13_ports.log http://people.freebsd.org/~ohauer/diffs/apache_ports/apache20_ports.log Most of the ports have equivalents for apache22. http://people.freebsd.org/~ohauer/diffs/apache_ports/apache22_ports.log All those ports where build with the following setting in bsd.apache.mk DEFAULT_APACHE_VERSION= 22 APACHE_SUPPORTED_VERSION= 22 13 20 -- olli _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
