On 1 May 2011 08:26, mato <gam...@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/ _______________________________________________ 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"
