From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jun 19 11: 3:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (trang.nuxi.com [66.92.13.169]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C3F37B40B; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:03:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dragon.nuxi.com (obrien@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.3/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g5JI3QP8042372; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:03:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from obrien@dragon.nuxi.com) Received: (from obrien@localhost) by dragon.nuxi.com (8.12.4/8.12.3/Submit) id g5JI3QFP042371; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:03:26 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:03:26 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" To: Gregory Neil Shapiro , Doug Barton , "Jin Guojun[DSD]" , "Crist J. Clark" , FreeBSD-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/39444: rc.sendmail syntax error: cannot disable sendmail Message-ID: <20020619110326.C42106@dragon.nuxi.com> Reply-To: obrien@FreeBSD.org References: <3D0FB406.83DE356D@lbl.gov> <20020618155900.O2483-100000@master.gorean.org> <15632.6996.519381.823439@horsey.gshapiro.net> <3D102055.F08DD2AE@FreeBSD.org> <15632.9131.365021.260177@horsey.gshapiro.net> <20020619104912.B41546@dragon.nuxi.com> <20020619180121.GA5897@starjuice.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20020619180121.GA5897@starjuice.net>; from sheldonh@starjuice.net on Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 08:01:21PM +0200 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT Organization: The NUXI BSD group X-Pgp-Rsa-Fingerprint: B7 4D 3E E9 11 39 5F A3 90 76 5D 69 58 D9 98 7A X-Pgp-Rsa-Keyid: 1024/34F9F9D5 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 Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 08:01:21PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > Ah, but the problem is that submit_enable, outbound_enable and > msp_queue_enable were new additions on the RELENG_4 branch, so the user > expectations of interest are those of users tracking -STABLE, not those > upgrading from -STABLE to -CURRENT. I suspected that was the real issue, but hadn't seen it explicitly stated in this thread. It sounds then, that this is purely a -stable issue (not sure -arch is the place for it then). > >From the beginning, this whole thing has been about a POLA violation on > the -STABLE branch. > > That said, what's done is done, and it's unlikely that any further > changes are going to improve the situation. Probably true. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message