From nobody Sun Dec 19 16:33:09 2021 X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C87190B604; Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:33:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marquis@roble.com) Received: from mx5.roble.com (mx5.roble.com [209.237.23.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA512 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mx5.roble.com", Issuer "mx5.roble.com" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4JH7Z46ff7z3hb4; Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:33:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marquis@roble.com) Received: from roble.com (roble.com [209.237.23.50]) by mx5.roble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23B4D2E71A; Sun, 19 Dec 2021 08:33:09 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=roble.com; s=rs060402; t=1639931589; bh=W8CYwn+nAtQAD3pWsn2GC4gR7wJQsMMXF/T3Cc8hmJc=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Bu6tTRBhGWHjQ0p9ZHxrP2vMqNlD/gKhNlXwqxNzIH+gBq89bRtV++50vd9AeRmY0 cMVMkKU/ycLKR6xqOQf5ZTppDb0QrA+javECfUUxQnga2l7umfPeBKZ3QGuIvqEfSd zogq0k0PI0fmtMTpR5ii2A0FilHgoWVLldN2rt6c= Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 08:33:09 -0800 (PST) From: Roger Marquis To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mail/postfix and mail/postfix-current missing on www.freebsd.org ports section In-Reply-To: <49d8244d-8824-f112-9792-4c294d8a6ddc@bluerosetech.com> Message-ID: <25r0p877-99oq-or7o-rn51-50p3113r51s9@mx.roble.com> References: <814827EE-433E-4D6E-B0D4-E91B7AD8B57C@ellael.org> <49d8244d-8824-f112-9792-4c294d8a6ddc@bluerosetech.com> List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-ports List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4JH7Z46ff7z3hb4 X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=roble.com header.s=rs060402 header.b=Bu6tTRBh; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=roble.com; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of marquis@roble.com designates 209.237.23.5 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=marquis@roble.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.23 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; URL_IN_SUBJECT(0.40)[www.freebsd.org]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[roble.com:s=rs060402]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.237.23.0/24]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.37)[0.365]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROMTLD(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[roble.com:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[roble.com,none]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:17403, ipnet:209.237.0.0/18, country:US]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-ThisMailContainsUnwantedMimeParts: N mail/postfix is in git though, so the question then is why is it not also on www.freebsd.org. Have also seen references to mail/postfix35 that is not in git or on www.freebsd.org. We're maintain our own, local, mail/postfix35(.13.2) for libressl compatibility. It's not all that difficult (git checkout ...;vi Makefile; make makesum; ...) but given how many sites use libressl and how long postfix35 will be supported by Wietse (i.e, many years) am wondering if it's worth checking-in? On a similar note: is anyone is maintaing a local/custom port in Poudriere or know where that might be documented? Roger Marquis On Fri, 17 Dec 2021, Mel Pilgrim wrote: > On 2021-12-17 4:20, Michael Grimm via freebsd-questions wrote: >> I noticed today that mail/postfix and mail/postfix-current are missing on >> https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/ports.cgi?query=%5Epostfix+&stype=all&sektion=all > > They are there as postfix-sasl and postfix-current-sasl. That page has a bug > with flavours such that it does not list the port with the default/first > flavour. This is more obvious with the postfixadmin ports, which are listed > with php80, not the default, php74.