Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 19:10:22 GMT From: Dan Lukes <dan@obluda.cz> To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/103855: security/amavisd-new & security/amavisd-milter circular dependence Message-ID: <200609301910.k8UJALmh066083@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/103855; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dan Lukes <dan@obluda.cz> To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor_K=F6vesd=E1n?= <gabor@FreeBSD.org> Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/103855: security/amavisd-new & security/amavisd-milter circular dependence Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:00:55 +0200 I think the correct view is - amavisd-milter is for those who want to run amavisd with milter. It use the amavisd-new as supporting port, so it should RUN_DEPEND on it. Those, who need new amavis, but don't want the milter interface, need amavisd-new. I see no reason to create special options for users who require new amavis with milter interface, but hate amavisd-milter port. Of course, you can create slave-variant from both ports, then include them from two separate master ports with different set of options. The amavis-milter will depend on slave-amavisd-milter and slave-amavisd-new, the amavisd-new will depend on slave-amavisd-new and, if required milter, on slave-amavisd-milter. But it sound as way to hell for me. As I said above, no user should require new amavis with milter, but rejecting to use amavisd-milter which is exactly for this. Dan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200609301910.k8UJALmh066083>