From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Jun 22 4:19: 5 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ringworld.nanolink.com (ringworld.nanolink.com [195.24.48.13]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C545237B403 for ; Fri, 22 Jun 2001 04:19:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roam@orbitel.bg) Received: (qmail 5020 invoked by uid 1000); 22 Jun 2001 11:17:25 -0000 Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001 14:17:25 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: src/release/Makefile NO_SENDMAIL fix Message-ID: <20010622141725.A4992@ringworld.oblivion.bg> Mail-Followup-To: arch@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20010621201945.A22338@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <20010622132714.A1016@sunbay.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010622132714.A1016@sunbay.com>; from ru@FreeBSD.ORG on Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 01:27:14PM +0300 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 01:27:14PM +0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 08:19:45PM +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Is there an overwhelming reason this should not go into the tree, > > thus enabling custom NO_SENDMAIL release builds? > > > I think that NO_'s are in general bad with release building. Any particular reason? I'm building a custom release to use for an automated indoors office installation. It works just fine without Sendmail (and please, no religious threads here :), and there's no real reason to have Sendmail installed on any of the machines. G'luck, Peter -- I am the thought you are now thinking. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message