From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 30 21:45:28 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE805106566B for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:45:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from beech@freebsd.org) Received: from bsdevel2.freebsdnorth.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:7:d77::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D3248FC15 for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:45:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from maximum3.maximumdata.biz (akbeech-2-pt.tunnel.tserv14.sea1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:a:2e9::2]) by bsdevel2.freebsdnorth.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E0AEC3B0A; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 21:40:48 +0000 (UTC) From: Beech Rintoul Organization: FreeBSD To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:45:25 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (FreeBSD/9.0-BETA2; KDE/4.6.5; i386; ; ) References: <201108300823.p7U8NIfD038098@repoman.freebsd.org> <4E5D26E2.7040300@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3649567.VCpAAKgml0"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201108301345.25661.beech@freebsd.org> Cc: Matthias Andree , Ted Hatfield Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/procmail Makefile X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 21:45:28 -0000 --nextPart3649567.VCpAAKgml0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tuesday 30 August 2011 11:01:18 Ted Hatfield wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Matthias Andree wrote: > > Am 30.08.2011 19:57, schrieb Mark Linimon: > >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:44:12PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote: > >>> It only warns, it does not prevent fresh installs on systems that don= 't > >>> have the same port/package already installed. > >>=20 > >> "code, not policy" ... ? > >=20 > > Well... is _is_ policy and meant as such. We make decisions for ports > > users all the time, and this is no exception. >=20 > If procmail has no ongoing security issues and it compiles and installs > with no problems what's the reasoning behind removing it from the ports > tree? >=20 > As far as I can see the reasoning advocated at this time is that > procmail hasn't been in active development since 2001. Shouldn't that > be seen as a sign of stability. >=20 > I'm not a software developer so maybe I'm missing something obvious > about this situation. Feel free to educate/convice me that I should > make the effort to switch from procmail to maildrop. >=20 > I've been using procmail now for 16 years and I'm very happy with it's > performance. Moving to maildrop would be a significant amount of effort > for both me and my users. >=20 > Ted Hatfield I second that, I also have it installed in several places and haven't had a= ny=20 problems. I don't want to have to move to another app just because someone= =20 feels like deprecating a mature port. I think the old addage "if it ain't=20 broke" applies here. Beech =2D-=20 =2D------------------------------------------------------------------------= =2D------------- Beech Rintoul - FreeBSD Developer - beech@FreeBSD.org /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | FreeBSD Since 4.x \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail | http://people.freebsd.org/~beech X - NO Word docs in e-mail | Skype: akbeech / \ - http://www.FreeBSD.org/releases/8.2R/announce.html =2D------------------------------------------------------------------------= =2D------------- --nextPart3649567.VCpAAKgml0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAk5dWfUACgkQFrTqt+y/3EQatACeOUzutUqiiDHoMRTHFDV9Z+Bp sqEAoIGvAcqj9WW76bgpMU3PBcnYLQLw =vOze -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3649567.VCpAAKgml0--