expiration of net/skype ?!
utisoft at gmail.com
Sun May 1 16:31:43 UTC 2011
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.
> 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 .
More information about the freebsd-ports