Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:12:11 +0200 From: Mads Martin Joergensen <mmj@mmj.dk> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: postfix port version numbering -- suggestions wanted Message-ID: <20040428191211.GD6618@panther.mmj.dk> In-Reply-To: <1A15A1DC-9947-11D8-B6E4-000A9578CFCC@khera.org> References: <AC962F6D-9940-11D8-B6E4-000A9578CFCC@khera.org> <200404281158.06331.ringworm@inbox.lv> <1A15A1DC-9947-11D8-B6E4-000A9578CFCC@khera.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org> [Apr 28. 2004 21:06]: > >My opinion is just as long as there is a stable postfix in > >mail/postfix ( no > >version number ) I could care less if there are also mail/postfix1 > >mail/postfix3 etc... > > I guess I'm more looking to see if people would need a postfix20 port > for whatever reason they have to stick to that version. It might make sense to keep it around for some time, since Wietse did release 2.0.20 when he released 2.1.0. But let postfix be the 2.1.0 version, and stick the 2.0 version in a postfix20 port. Speaking of postfix-2.1. I know of a free software company that used 2.1 on their main MX for +6 weeks now. It's been a very good experience, with several improvements over 2.0.x -- Mads Martin Joergensen, http://mmj.dk "Why make things difficult, when it is possible to make them cryptic and totally illogical, with just a little bit more effort?" -- A. P. J.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040428191211.GD6618>