#43700: freetds: Move back to stable version ------------------------+-------------------------------- Reporter: stronk7@… | Owner: macports-tickets@… Type: defect | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.2.1 Resolution: | Keywords: Port: freetds | ------------------------+-------------------------------- Changes (by ryandesign@…): * port: => freetds Old description:
With https://trac.macports.org/changeset/99639 the freetds port was moved to 0.92.405
0.92 is a development version and 405 is already 1.5y old.
More yet, it has some important issues handling LOBs and restrictions about logging/debugging, that seem to be enabled by default, conflicting with any attempt to disable it @ freetds.conf. Also a lot of issues have been fixed since 405 till today, many of them backported to 0.91.
So this is a request to move back to 0.91 (stable version) point 103.
I've switched here, using it from MSSQL, and it really seems to be quicker and more stable.
For your consideration. The change is trivial. The only point is that it implies a "downgrade" (version.wise).
Ciao :-)
New description: With r99639 the freetds port was moved to 0.92.405 0.92 is a development version and 405 is already 1.5y old. More yet, it has some important issues handling LOBs and restrictions about logging/debugging, that seem to be enabled by default, conflicting with any attempt to disable it @ freetds.conf. Also a lot of issues have been fixed since 405 till today, many of them backported to 0.91. So this is a request to move back to 0.91 (stable version) point 103. I've switched here, using it from MSSQL, and it really seems to be quicker and more stable. For your consideration. The change is trivial. The only point is that it implies a "downgrade" (version.wise). Ciao :-) -- Comment: Thanks for letting us know. I didn't know 0.92.x wasn't stable. 0.92.402 is the "largest" version number in the [ftp://ftp.freetds.org/pub/freetds/stable/ stable downloads directory] so if it's not actually stable then that's confusing. If 0.92.x is not stable, then we can go back to 0.91.x, but doing so will require that the port's epoch gets increased. I'm also not sure yet how we'll construct a working livecheck for this situation. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/43700#comment:2> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for OS X