From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon May 11 11:05:00 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 075F72DE234 for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 11:05:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-ports@dino.sk) Received: from mailhost.netlabit.sk (mailhost.netlabit.sk [84.245.65.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49LJ4B3qRFz4PTN for ; Mon, 11 May 2020 11:04:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-ports@dino.sk) Received: from zeta.dino.sk (fw3.dino.sk [84.245.95.254]) (AUTH: LOGIN milan) by mailhost.netlabit.sk with ESMTPA; Mon, 11 May 2020 13:04:50 +0200 id 00F40498.5EB93152.0000B371 Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 13:04:49 +0200 From: Milan Obuch To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Conflicts with mail/courier port Message-ID: <20200511130449.15e9ee6f@zeta.dino.sk> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.5 (GTK+ 2.24.32; i386-portbld-freebsd11.3) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49LJ4B3qRFz4PTN X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd-ports@dino.sk designates 84.245.65.72 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd-ports@dino.sk X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.99 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[dino.sk]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(-1.69)[ip: (-8.15), ipnet: 84.245.64.0/18(-4.07), asn: 16160(3.68), country: SK(0.09)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:16160, ipnet:84.245.64.0/18, country:SK]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 11:05:00 -0000 Hi, I am preparing new mail/courier port. There is an issue with conflicts, current port version is 0.65.3 and new one will be 1.0.13 (or higher, if upstream release comes sooner). Currently I found following lines in Makefiles for relevant ports: mail/courier-imap CONFLICTS= courier-[0-9]* imap-uw-[0-9]* panda-imap-[0-9]* mail/maildrop CONFLICTS= courier-0.65* libunicode-[0-9]* mail/meta1 CONFLICTS= smx-* CONFLICTS+= courier-0.* postfix-1.* postfix-2.* smail-3.* zmailer-2.* opensmtpd-* sendmail-* mail/panda-imap CONFLICTS_INSTALL= imap-uw-20* courier-0.65.* mail/postfix CONFLICTS_INSTALL?= courier-0.* opensmtpd-[0-9]* sendmail-8.* sendmail+*-8.* \ mail/postfix-current CONFLICTS_INSTALL?= courier-0.* opensmtpd-[0-9]* sendmail-8.* sendmail+*-8.* \ mail/sendmail CONFLICTS?= courier-0.* postfix-1.* postfix-2.* smail-3.* zmailer-2.* opensmtpd-* CONFLICTS+= sendmail-ldap-8.* sendmail-sasl2-8.* sendmail-tls-8.* CONFLICTS+= sendmail-sasl2-8.* sendmail-tls-8.* CONFLICTS+= sendmail-ldap-8.* sendmail-tls-8.* CONFLICTS+= sendmail-ldap-8.* sendmail-sasl2-8.* CONFLICTS2!= ${MAKE_PKGNAMES} | ${GREP} -v "${PORTNAME}${PKGNAMESUFFIX:S|${PKGNAMESUFFIX2}||}-8." CONFLICTS+= ${CONFLICTS2} mail/sendmail-devel CONFLICTS?= courier-0.* postfix-1.* postfix-2.* smail-3.* zmailer-2.* opensmtpd-* CONFLICTS+= sendmail-ldap-8.* sendmail-sasl2-8.* sendmail-tls-8.* CONFLICTS+= sendmail-sasl2-8.* sendmail-tls-8.* CONFLICTS+= sendmail-ldap-8.* sendmail-tls-8.* CONFLICTS+= sendmail-ldap-8.* sendmail-sasl2-8.* CONFLICTS2!= ${MAKE_PKGNAMES} | ${GREP} -v "${PORTNAME}${PKGNAMESUFFIX:S|${PKGNAMESUFFIX2}||}-8." CONFLICTS+= ${CONFLICTS2} I did not analyze the conflict itself, if you plan install mail/courier port, i. e. full mail server suite, it is not wise to install another mail server suite or some component. I just think it would be good to upgrade conflict expression in mentioned ports. This could be done now not taking into account new port is not yet submitted. Maybe simplest action would be just use what's in mail/courier-imap port, I think it is universal, but would like to hear second oppinion. Regards, Milan