Re: Quick status update on Squid 3.x ports
Hello Thomas-Martin, Just wanted to check in if there is more info on Squid 3.2 or if you encountered a setback and are pushing the release further. Cheers and keep up the good work! -- Lyubomir Grigorov (bgalakazam) ___ 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"
Re: Quick status update on Squid 3.x ports
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:07 AM, Ruslan Mahmatkhanov wrote:
> First thank you for working on this. According to squid web-page, 3.2 is
> the only stable version ("Current versions suitable for production use."),
> that is actively maintained. 3.1 and less are listed in "Old versions -
> Provided for archival purposes only. Not intended for general use in new
> installations". Is there still 2.7 users?! As for me, 3.2 should go to
> www/squid and some kind of exp-run should be done to make sure the ports
> depending on it builds fine.
>
>
There are bound to be at least some 2.7 users who are waiting for all 2.7's
features to be implemented in the 3.x branch. e.g. an equivalent of
url_rewrite_program doesn't exist in pre-3.2.
Anton
___
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"
Re: Quick status update on Squid 3.x ports
Hi Thomas,
Thomas-Martin Seck wrote on 27.09.2012 09:22:
Hi,
this is just a short update on the status of Squid 3 ports. As you may
have noticed I am a bit behind with regards to Squid 3.2. Sorry for that
-- I could not spend much time for ports development in the last few
months. To add insult to injury I will be offline for the next couple of
days but I plan to have the 3.2 port ready in the week starting Oct 7
nonetheless.
I just submitted an update request for 3.1 to 3.1.21 for the time being.
On a side note: in the past, the default Squid port was named
www/squid and the older or development Squid versions had versioned port
directory names. Should we move www/squid to www/squid27 instead and
make all Squid dependend ports that currently depend on www/squid use
www/squid27 instead?
Best regards
First thank you for working on this. According to squid web-page, 3.2 is
the only stable version ("Current versions suitable for production
use."), that is actively maintained. 3.1 and less are listed in "Old
versions - Provided for archival purposes only. Not intended for general
use in new installations". Is there still 2.7 users?! As for me, 3.2
should go to www/squid and some kind of exp-run should be done to make
sure the ports depending on it builds fine.
--
Regards,
Ruslan
Tinderboxing kills... the drives.
___
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"
Quick status update on Squid 3.x ports
Hi, this is just a short update on the status of Squid 3 ports. As you may have noticed I am a bit behind with regards to Squid 3.2. Sorry for that -- I could not spend much time for ports development in the last few months. To add insult to injury I will be offline for the next couple of days but I plan to have the 3.2 port ready in the week starting Oct 7 nonetheless. I just submitted an update request for 3.1 to 3.1.21 for the time being. On a side note: in the past, the default Squid port was named www/squid and the older or development Squid versions had versioned port directory names. Should we move www/squid to www/squid27 instead and make all Squid dependend ports that currently depend on www/squid use www/squid27 instead? Best regards -- Thomas-Martin Seck pgpVD4BZTTArF.pgp Description: PGP signature
