Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:37:33 -0800 From: Allan Bowhill <abowhill@blarg.net> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Allan Bowhill <abowhill@blarg.net> Subject: Re: Bug in ports howto question Message-ID: <20031127073733.GB58872@kosmos.my.net> In-Reply-To: <20031127134740.GV340@freepuppy.bellavista.cz> References: <20031027223648.GC1004@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> <20031028000708.GA52155@kosmos.mynet> <20031028004319.GF1004@zi025.glhnet.mhn.de> <20031125072702.GG340@freepuppy.bellavista.cz> <20031125064404.GA38625@kosmos.my.net> <20031125193010.GB67289@freepuppy.bellavista.cz> <20031125094426.GA39119@kosmos.my.net> <20031126103714.GT340@freepuppy.bellavista.cz> <20031126083957.GA56061@kosmos.my.net> <20031127134740.GV340@freepuppy.bellavista.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 0, Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser@bellavista.cz> wrote: : hm, sysinstall could probably ask for an IP of your smarthost, and : configure sendmail accordingly. That would be great, but there are problems with this. 1. If the user chooses another MTA like exim or postfix 2. If the user needs smtp-auth for sendmail he needs to recompile with SSL a port and cyrus-sasl, which is in ports. In addition to that he needs special make.conf modifications, and a warning that his compiled copy of sendmail will become inoperable if he makes world. I don't know if there would be a good solution to this other than creating a 3rd party port/package that does it all in one go. :> If you mean that ports should be accepted by some other mechanism? :> :> Yes, definitely. : : I disagree. There's already an establish channel for patch : submissions, why duplicate efforts? Becuase the current channels are inadequate for some people. Not sure how many. : I think there could be a mini-cvs utility, just with a few features :> defined to allow new ports to be submitted to a different repository, :> separate from ports (which is already . branch). :> :> I also think it would be cool if there were a freebsd third-party :> developer portal that kept this repository, accounts etc. like :> SourceForge, but for ports. Maybe call it PortsForge :) :> :> That way, maintainers and new contributors could keep an open source :> base of stuff they committed to the portal, while committers could :> peruse the portal for new software to carry-over to the ports collection. : : this has been discussed on this list, started, and announced here : during the last two weeks. Yes. Someone wrote me about this today. (http://sourceforge.net/projects/portrookies/). I will check it out. It sounds interesting. -- Allan Bowhill abowhill@blarg.net The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it. -- Glaser and Way
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031127073733.GB58872>