expiration of net/skype ?!

[Chris Rees]

On 1 May 2011 08:26, mato <gamato at users.sf.net> wrote:
> Chris Rees wrote:
>> Mato wrote:
>> > Ok, from my understanding it wouldn't be the first time a port distfile
>> > is not (easily) available yet the port itself works if one can get the
>> > distfile.  And it's very easy to search successfully the interwebs for this
>> > particular distfile.  In such a case I see no reason to remove the port if
>> > it works (under condition one gets the distfile).  I myself have it (and I
>> > even host it privately).  And reading mailing lists reveals there are many
>> > people using the port.
>> >
>>
>> If one is capable of finding a distfile it's a trivial addition to find
>> the port.
>>
>> Rather than having defective ports in the tree, perhaps you could host the
>> Skype shar? With a decent title it'll probably show up early enough on a
>> Google search.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
> That is one of possibilities.  The question is whether we want to lower
> barriers for new / common users or not.  Experience suggests that people
> will choose a different solution if it makes their life easier.  See my
> other recent post please.
>

Unfortunately, until the port is updated this will not be 'undeprecated'.

It is not general policy to allow manual fetches unless a seriously
major (ie Java) component requires it. Skype does not fit that mould;
there are plenty of viable alternatives.

I'm not trying to brush you off; I'm just pointing out that the
Project will not deliberately
breach licensing conditions to make things easier for new users,
neither is there a
'probably broken' part of the Ports tree -- the closest thing to a
different repo is a separate tree,
for example [1].

Chris

[1] http://code.google.com/p/freebsd-texlive/