From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 7 19:17:47 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 947B9106566C for ; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 19:17:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ohauer@gmx.de) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3202E8FC08 for ; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 19:17:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 07 Mar 2010 19:17:41 -0000 Received: from u18-124.dsl.vianetworks.de (EHLO [172.20.1.100]) [194.231.39.124] by mail.gmx.net (mp069) with SMTP; 07 Mar 2010 20:17:41 +0100 X-Authenticated: #1956535 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+WWr8HeKGWOk+/XnAE1YwPS2A1euY9SYBqcbig5R vX5iBIMek93ZvV Message-ID: <4B93FBD2.8060903@gmx.de> Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 20:17:38 +0100 From: olli hauer User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Randal L. Schwartz" References: <201003071750.o27Ho2SW027882@freefall.freebsd.org> <4B93F758.2020508@infracaninophile.co.uk> <86y6i4t0ql.fsf@blue.stonehenge.com> In-Reply-To: <86y6i4t0ql.fsf@blue.stonehenge.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-FuHaFi: 0.60999999999999999 Cc: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ports/144502: mail/spamd port insists on fdescfs mount X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:17:47 -0000 Randal L. Schwartz wrote: >>>>>> "Matthew" == Matthew Seaman writes: > > Matthew> Anyhow, if STD{IN,OUT,ERR} is sufficient for obspamd then the test in > Matthew> the init script could be reduced to > > Matthew> if [ -c /dev/fd/0 ] ; then > > Matthew> Otherwise, testing for fdescfs is correct. > > I don't know whether fd's higher than 2 are required. So maybe the > description and instructions should be left as is for now. > Yes, fd's higher than 2 are required. I implemented the check for fdescfs with this thread in mind. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-pf/2006-November/002744.html -- Regards, olli