From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Oct 24 14:40: 5 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8D9F37B479 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:40:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id OAA86616; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:40:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 14:40:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200010242140.OAA86616@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: "Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira" Subject: Re: ports/22269: qmail installation should also modify /etc/make.conf Reply-To: "Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira" Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR ports/22269; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira" To: gavin@itworks.com.au Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/22269: qmail installation should also modify /etc/make.conf Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 19:30:02 -0200 > When qmail is installed out of the ports you do a > make disable-sendmail > and a > make enable-qmail > > One of those commands should add a line to /etc/make.conf > > NO_SENDMAIL=true I am not sure I agree. Should both qmail and postfix do this? I do not think so as I think this should be a aware user choice. Specially because most users do not build world and I am not sure those who do would prefer it that way. However, I am open to argumentation. Ports? -- Mario S F Ferreira - UnB - Brazil - "I guess this is a signature." lioux at ( freebsd dot org | linf dot unb dot br ) flames to beloved devnull@someotherworldbeloworabove.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message