svn commit: r510920 - in head/sysutils: . syslog-ng syslog-ng323

[Adam Weinberger]

> On Sep 3, 2019, at 05:29, Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert at cschubert.com> wrote:
> 
> In message <201909031118.x83BIUTl031197 at slippy.cwsent.com>, Cy Schubert 
> writes:
>> In message <20190903082020.73tdsn7gio7svyfm at ivaldir.net>, Baptiste 
>> Daroussin wr
>> ites:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 03:31:57AM +0000, Cy Schubert wrote:
>>>> Author: cy
>>>> Date: Tue Sep  3 03:31:56 2019
>>>> New Revision: 510920
>>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/510920
>>>> =20
>>>> Log:
>>>> Thank you to Peter Czanik, of Balabit the producers of syslog-ng, for
>>>> a port of the new syslog-ng 3.23 branch. This is 3.23.1.
>>>> =20
>>>> Submitted by:    Peter Czanik (CzP) <peter.czanik at oneidentity.com>
>>>>         Balabit (a OneIdentity company) / syslog-ng upstream
>>> 
>>> Do we really need all possible revision of syslog-ng in ports?
>>> 
>>> Do they have that many incompatibilities between each others that is it
>>> mandatory to have all the supported one? isn't it possible to only live wit
>> =
>>> h the
>>> lastest stable version? it seems most linux distribution are doing that and
>>> happy with it, so does pkgsrc and openbsd ports.
>>> 
>>> I think it is more confusing users than it does help them to have 15 differ
>> =
>>> ent
>>> version of syslog-ng in ports.
>> 
>> No we don't. I periodically cull older ones following consultation with our 
>> upstream. It's probably time to do that again.
> 
> I've pinged our upstream for his input. We'll have a plan by the end of the 
> week.

Has this been resolved? I saw that you purged unsupported versions, but is there a need for every supported version to be in ports?

# Adam


—
Adam Weinberger
adamw at adamw.org
https://www.adamw.org