expiration of net/skype ?!
itetcu at FreeBSD.org
Tue May 3 08:47:05 UTC 2011
On Sun, 1 May 2011 17:31:11 +0100
Chris Rees <utisoft at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
There are other too (all of them annoying for me as a user), and there
is not problem with this. But that is the upstream policy about
distributing those distfiles -- we don't require users to google and
find copies somewhere on the web.
> 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
We don't break them for any reason.
> 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 .
>  http://code.google.com/p/freebsd-texlive/
Anyway, work is underway to fully support newer skype versions, and the
biggest part of the work in our linuxulator was done.
Again, if you want skype, go on skype's forums and bug them about
supporting FreeBSD or at least OSS suport. This being a binary product,
there's very little we can realy do when somethign goes wrong.
Ion-Mihai Tetcu <itetcu at FreeBSD.org>
More information about the freebsd-ports