Re: Switching default version of PHP/RUBY and retirement...

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

taca at NetBSD.org <taca%back-street.net@localhost> writes:

> I'll switch default version of PHP and Ruby:
>
> 	PHP_VERSION_DEFAULT	82
> 	RUBY_VERSION_DEFAULT	32

no objections to that.

> Also, retire obsolete PHP, php80 first and hopefully php74 (and php56)
> since there are many unmaintained PHP based pacakges...

Recursive removals in the past have gone badly, almost always much more
so than the person proposing them expected.  unmaintained is not
entirely the point; it's about users and what is withdrawn vs the
maintenance cost.

My understanding is that there is nothing that needs php80, in that
every package that works with 8.0 will work with 8.1.  So that seems
fine.

I really don't understand the situation with php74 and especially php56.
If you want to delete those, we should have a removal proposal that
identifies the packages that will be removed.

While I see the point of cleaning up cruft, it doesn't feel like the
presence of php56 (to pick one) is causing trouble.  We need to have a
"versions accepted" mechanism no matter what, and packages that only
take 5.6 are coded that way, and I don't see that this is causing anyone
to have to do any ongoing work.  Am i misperceiving?

If there are packages that should be removed, in that there is no
expectation of any use, proposing that is of course within our norms.
But users in general do run software that is EOL, so that isn't a
justification all by itself without considering the larger picture.