Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:13:18 -0400 From: Jim Trigg <jtrigg@spamcop.net> To: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: postfix port version numbering -- suggestions wanted Message-ID: <20040428191318.GA65852@spamcop.net> In-Reply-To: <AC962F6D-9940-11D8-B6E4-000A9578CFCC@khera.org> References: <AC962F6D-9940-11D8-B6E4-000A9578CFCC@khera.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 02:20:05PM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
> During the freeze, postfix 2.1 was released, and postfix 2.2
> "development" branch was started. It is fairly self-evident that the
> postfix-current port should become the 2.2 version. What is not clear
> is how to handle the transition from the 2.0 to 2.1 as the "release"
> version.
>
> Currently there are three postfix ports: postfix1, postfix, and
> postfix-current. Obviously, enough people still run postfix 1.x to
> need a postfix1 port. So my thought is to make a postfix20 port for
> the now old 2.0 line, and have the postfix port be the 2.1 release.
> This way people can upgrade as they see fit, and if they have a burning
> desire to still run 2.0.x, they can. Or is there any point in having a
> 2.0 sitting about? They're totally backward compatible.
>
> What do other postfix users out there think? I'm holding off
> submitting the PR's until we decide on what to do.
>
> Please follow up to the list. I read it.
I don't think it's necessary. There isn't a large effort involved in
moving from 2.0.x to 2.1 the way there is in moving from 1.x to 2.x.
Jim
--
Jim Trigg, Lord High Everything Else O- /"\
\ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
Hostmaster, Huie Kin family website X HELP CURE HTML MAIL
Verger, All Saints Church - Sharon Chapel / \
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040428191318.GA65852>