[Bug 270102] devel/bugzilla50 doesn't work with MySQL 8; fixed in upstream years ago. Also, I think it might not be maintained anymore.

https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=270102

            Bug ID: 270102
           Summary: devel/bugzilla50 doesn't work with MySQL 8; fixed in
                    upstream years ago. Also, I think it might not be
                    maintained anymore.
           Product: Ports & Packages
           Version: Latest
          Hardware: Any
                OS: Any
            Status: New
          Severity: Affects Many People
          Priority: ---
         Component: Individual Port(s)
          Assignee: bz-ports@FreeBSD.org
          Reporter: bob@vesterman.com
             Flags: maintainer-feedback?(bz-ports@FreeBSD.org)
          Assignee: bz-ports@FreeBSD.org

The devel/bugzilla50 port does not work with the latest
databases/mysql80-server, and I suspect that the listed maintainer might no
longer be maintaining it.

It compiles fine, from the point of view of the FreeBSD ports system, but when
you then follow the pkg-message installation instructions by running its
"checksetup.pl" script, it fails while trying to create its table "groups".

I investigated a bit, and found that this is because "groups" was added as a
reserved keyword in MySQL 8 (which was released nearly five years ago), and so
can't be used as a table name without employing a little special syntax. The
upstream Bugzilla people then put out a fix, in version 5.0.6, about four years
ago. Unfortunately, devel/bugzilla50 has never been updated past 5.0.4 (five
years ago), and so it fails to work on FreeBSD.

I started a thread on the FreeBSD forums about this, about two weeks ago, and
at about the same time sent an email to the listed maintainer about the issue.
I have not yet received a response; add that to the fact that it hasn't been
updated to a new upstream version that was released four years ago, and I'm
thinking maybe it isn't maintained at all anymore?

What I'm really hoping for here is for it to be updated to 5.0.6. Failing that,
though, maybe it should be explicitly marked as unmaintained, so as to increase
the chance that someone might notice and pick up the mantle? I don't know the
standard procedure for this sort of thing.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.