ASSP out of date

[Scott Haneda]

On Nov 11, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

> On Nov 11, 2008, at 17:53, Scott Haneda wrote:
>
>> How do you suggest I deal with this port in final release.  The old  
>> port was 1.1.0, and ASSP has gone through a directory structure  
>> change, as well as multiple file deletions and additions.
>>
>> The 1.4.3.0 is probably the last release before 2.0 comes out,  
>> which is in beta now. I can see a bug patch here or there, but no  
>> major changes to 1.4.3.0
>>
>> I am going to want to prevent the issuing of an upgrade to an older  
>> installed 1.1.0, as it will break everything.  I could go back to  
>> 1.1.0, and see what has changed, and work to solve this issue, but  
>> given the age of the original port, I suspect hardly anyone is  
>> using the port anyway, or you would have heard requests for it.
>>
>> What is your suggestion on how to deal with this?  Rename the port  
>> to something like assp1 and then have assp2 seperate when version 2  
>> hits release, and leave the assp port as is?
>
> There don't appear to be any ports in MacPorts that depend on the  
> assp port. So that's good; you don't have to test if your update  
> breaks any other ports.
>
> Is there any reason why anyone would want to use assp 1.1.0 instead  
> of 1.4.3.0 or 2.0? You said it's so old that you suspect hardly  
> anybody is using it. So I would just update the port. If we later  
> discover someone really wants the old version, we can always get it  
> back from the repository.

The only reason I can think would be if they wanted to burn through  
CPU cycles and otherwise cause themselves lots of pain.  1.1, while  
not something I used, was back in the days when people would not even  
consider running ASSP as it could not keep up with basic levels of  
mail flow.  It is the very reason I did not look at it back then.

> FYI: Ports cannot be easily renamed in MacPorts; we are having this  
> discussion right now in another thread, in fact.


But I can create a new port, if I so desired, and call it assp1, and  
submit that?  I will not be doing that, but I wanted to make sure I  
can move on and make assp2 as a totally new port.
--
Scott