From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 25 16:30:54 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBBBD16A40F; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:30:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from vivek@khera.org) Received: from yertle.kcilink.com (yertle.kcilink.com [65.205.34.180]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F31443DEF; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:28:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from vivek@khera.org) Received: from [192.168.7.103] (host-103.int.kcilink.com [192.168.7.103]) by yertle.kcilink.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1996AB816; Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:28:08 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20061024190341.J63561@arbitor.digitalfreaks.org> References: <85198155-D6C6-426E-BC50-A91F05C38040@khera.org> <20061024190341.J63561@arbitor.digitalfreaks.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1; boundary=Apple-Mail-4-950377424; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature" Message-Id: From: Vivek Khera Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:28:07 -0400 To: Brian A. Seklecki X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: ports@freebsd.org, Syslog-ng users' and developers' mailing list , marsgmiro@gmail.com, sem@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [syslog-ng] building 2.0 on freebsd 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: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:30:55 -0000 --Apple-Mail-4-950377424 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed On Oct 24, 2006, at 7:09 PM, Brian A. Seklecki wrote: > You should try to work closely with the FreeBSD port maintainer for > sysutils/syslog-ng to integrate 2.x into a Port. Unless there is a > liscencing restriction I don't know preventing a enw sysutils/ > syslog-ng2/ port, we're still at 1.6.11 in Ports. I am still evaluating whether I will be using this software in our infrastructure. If I do (which seems likely), I plan to adopt the port once 2.0 is released. I don't see a compelling reason to keep a separate 2.0 version of the port as it is back-compatible, and I believe that the base port name, syslog-ng, should be the latest version always. That's how I maintain the postfix port, too :-) --Apple-Mail-4-950377424--