saving a few ports from death

Olli Hauer ohauer at
Wed Apr 27 22:40:23 UTC 2011

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

Most of the ports have equivalents for apache22.

All those ports where build with the following setting in


More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list