Am 12.08.2019 um 08:55 schrieb Wolfgang Zenker:
* Kevin Oberman [190812 01:50]:
On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 4:23 PM Martin Waschbüsch
wrote:
Am 11.08.2019 um 23:31 schrieb Wolfgang Zenker :
* Martin Waschbüsch [190811 20:41]:
[..]
You could also have used the quarterly branch, which keeps
Martin Waschbüsch wrote on 2019/08/16 09:27:
Thank you for your input.
While I agree that PHP, in general, has been and still is a source of lots of
security issues, I do not think this is the central point in this debate.
There might be a high probability of security issues that are PHP
Hi Dan,
> Am 16.08.2019 um 08:07 schrieb Dan Mahoney :
>
> Martin and others,
>
> I don’t have a good answer for this, other than to say that PHP has been the
> bane of my existence for a while. As a admin, I’ve lost more hours and sleep
> on PHP scripts than any other tool. PHP is the
> Am 13.08.2019 um 08:13 schrieb @lbutlr :
>
> On 12 Aug 19, at 01:04 , Martin Waschbüsch wrote:
>> So, I find it wrong to say, as I understood you, to remove a package from
>> the ports tree because otherwise others people, for instance users of
>> FreeBSD, would have the *expectation* of
On 12 Aug 19, at 01:04 , Martin Waschbüsch wrote:
> So, I find it wrong to say, as I understood you, to remove a package from the
> ports tree because otherwise others people, for instance users of FreeBSD,
> would have the *expectation* of receiving support for those packages.
There is not
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 13:22:25 +0200
Kurt Jaeger wrote:
> Hi!
>
> [...]
> > 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.?
> >
> > What do y'all think?
>
> You make the case
Hi Adam,
> Am 12.08.2019 um 15:29 schrieb Adam Weinberger :
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 1:04 AM Martin Waschbüsch
> wrote:
>> Furthermore, the argument that it is more more work to maintain an
>> abandoned version is silly because it’s more work to delete a port that
>> to just
> On 12. Aug 2019, at 16:29, Adam Weinberger wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 1:04 AM Martin Waschbüsch
> wrote:
>> Furthermore, the argument that it is more more work to maintain an
>> abandoned version is silly because it’s more work to delete a port that
>> to just keep it
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 1:04 AM Martin Waschbüsch wrote:
> Furthermore, the argument that it is more more work to maintain an
> abandoned version is silly because it’s more work to delete a port that
> to just keep it in the tree for a while longer.
> >>>
> >>> That last part
Franco Fichtner wrote on 2019/08/12 08:20:
That „while“ is debatable, but it’s neither indefinitely nor immediately. The
people responsible for FreeBSD ports and packages would be wise to enrich their
policies with a more graceful way of dealing with legacy software, especially
if it relates
Hi Adam,
> Am 12.08.2019 um 02:17 schrieb Adam Weinberger :
>
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 5:50 PM Martin Waschbüsch
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Adam,
>>
>>> Am 11.08.2019 um 23:22 schrieb Adam Weinberger :
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 1:05 PM Franco Fichtner
>>> wrote:
Quarterly is
* Kevin Oberman [190812 01:50]:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 4:23 PM Martin Waschbüsch
> wrote:
>>> Am 11.08.2019 um 23:31 schrieb Wolfgang Zenker :
>>> * Martin Waschbüsch [190811 20:41]:
[..]
> You could also have used the quarterly branch, which keeps software till
> the end of the
> On 12. Aug 2019, at 00:22, Adam Weinberger wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 1:05 PM Franco Fichtner wrote:
>>
>> Quarterly is essentially useless if the decision is to immediately axe a
>> deprecated release. 3 months are nothing in production environments, if you
>> get 3 months (1,5
On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 5:50 PM Martin Waschbüsch wrote:
>
> Hi Adam,
>
> > Am 11.08.2019 um 23:22 schrieb Adam Weinberger :
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 1:05 PM Franco Fichtner
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Quarterly is essentially useless if the decision is to immediately axe a
> >> deprecated
On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 4:23 PM Martin Waschbüsch
wrote:
>
> > Am 11.08.2019 um 23:31 schrieb Wolfgang Zenker <
> wolfg...@lyxys.ka.sub.org>:
> >
> > * Martin Waschbüsch [190811 20:41]:
> >> [..]
> >>> You could also have used the quarterly branch, which keeps software
> till
> >>> the end of
Hi Adam,
> Am 11.08.2019 um 23:22 schrieb Adam Weinberger :
>
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 1:05 PM Franco Fichtner wrote:
>>
>> Quarterly is essentially useless if the decision is to immediately axe a
>> deprecated release. 3 months are nothing in production environments, if you
>> get 3 months
> Am 11.08.2019 um 23:31 schrieb Wolfgang Zenker :
>
> * Martin Waschbüsch [190811 20:41]:
>> [..]
>>> You could also have used the quarterly branch, which keeps software till
>>> the end of the quarter. In the case of php 5.6 it would have given you
>>> time until March 31st, and would have
* Martin Waschbüsch [190811 20:41]:
> [..]
>> You could also have used the quarterly branch, which keeps software till
>> the end of the quarter. In the case of php 5.6 it would have given you
>> time until March 31st, and would have included version 5.6.40
> 5.6.40 never made it into the main
On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 1:05 PM Franco Fichtner wrote:
>
> Quarterly is essentially useless if the decision is to immediately axe a
> deprecated release. 3 months are nothing in production environments, if you
> get 3 months (1,5 months mean) at all and also all other updates and security
>
Quarterly is essentially useless if the decision is to immediately axe a
deprecated release. 3 months are nothing in production environments, if you get
3 months (1,5 months mean) at all and also all other updates and security
relevant bug fixes in the same quarterly that you desperately need.
Hi Wolfgang,
> Am 11.08.2019 um 01:12 schrieb Wolfgang Zenker :
>
> * Martin Waschbüsch [190811 00:47]:
>>> Am 10.08.2019 um 20:18 schrieb Patrick Powell :
>>>
>>> Umm this was just the kick in the pants that I needed to switch to PHP 7.
>>> See https://www.glaver.org/blog/?p=1109 for a
* Martin Waschbüsch [190811 00:47]:
>> Am 10.08.2019 um 20:18 schrieb Patrick Powell :
>>
>> Umm this was just the kick in the pants that I needed to switch to PHP 7.
>> See https://www.glaver.org/blog/?p=1109 for a desperation 'I need PHP5.6'
>> hack which I used during this update.
> Thank
> Am 10.08.2019 um 20:18 schrieb Patrick Powell :
>
> Umm this was just the kick in the pants that I needed to switch to PHP 7.
> See https://www.glaver.org/blog/?p=1109 for a desperation 'I need PHP5.6'
> hack which I used during this update.
Thank you, Patrick,
that is a work-around I also
> Am 10.08.2019 um 12:53 schrieb Carmel NY :
>
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 10:17:44 +0200, Martin Waschbüsch 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.?
>>
>> What do
On 2019-08-10 01:17, Martin Waschbüsch wrote:
Hi all,
At least the last two versions of PHP, 5.6 & 7.0, were removed from ports as
soon as (or even shortly before) they were no longer actively maintained upstream.
I am unsure what the exact reasoning behind this was, but I do not think it is
Hi!
[...]
> 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.?
>
> What do y'all think?
You make the case for something other systems call backports,
basically, keeping stuff in
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 10:17:44 +0200, Martin Waschbüsch stated:
>Hi all,
>
>At least the last two versions of PHP, 5.6 & 7.0, were removed from
>ports as soon as (or even shortly before) they were no longer actively
>maintained upstream. I am unsure what the exact reasoning behind this
>was, but I
Hi all,
At least the last two versions of PHP, 5.6 & 7.0, were removed from ports as
soon as (or even shortly before) they were no longer actively maintained
upstream.
I am unsure what the exact reasoning behind this was, but I do not think it is
a good idea moving forward:
I suppose it is
28 matches
Mail list logo
