Chris Rees wrote:
On 1 May 2011 07:58, "mato" <gam...@users.sf.net
<mailto:gam...@users.sf.net>> wrote:
>
> Peter Jeremy wrote:
>>
>> On 2011-Apr-26 01:47:30 +0200, martinko<gam...@users.sf.net
<mailto:gam...@users.sf.net>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> So what is this deprecation and expiration of net/skype port please ??
>>>
>>
>> Whilst the Skype port still works, the version of Skype referenced by
>> the port is no longer available and later versions of Skype do not
>> (currently) work on FreeBSD. My reading of the Skype license suggests
>> that the FreeBSD Project cannot host the distfile without an agreement
>> with Skype. This means that someone who doesn't currently have the
>> Skype distfile cannot install the Skype port.
>>
>> I believe work is underway to support the currently available version
>> of Skype.
>>
>
>
> 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.
Regards,
M.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
