From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 28 12:13:20 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A66B16A4CE for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from argent.heraldsnet.org (argent.heraldsnet.org [64.83.41.80]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8F5443D1D for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:13:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jtrigg@spamcop.net) Received: by argent.heraldsnet.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 7EF6815B; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:13:18 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:13:18 -0400 From: Jim Trigg To: ports@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20040428191318.GA65852@spamcop.net> Mail-Followup-To: ports@FreeBSD.org References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Habeas-SWE-1: winter into spring X-Habeas-SWE-2: brightly anticipated X-Habeas-SWE-3: like Habeas SWE (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-4: Copyright 2002 Habeas (tm) X-Habeas-SWE-5: Sender Warranted Email (SWE) (tm). The sender of this X-Habeas-SWE-6: email in exchange for a license for this Habeas X-Habeas-SWE-7: warrant mark warrants that this is a Habeas Compliant X-Habeas-SWE-8: Message (HCM) and not spam. Please report use of this X-Habeas-SWE-9: mark in spam to . Subject: Re: postfix port version numbering -- suggestions wanted X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:13:20 -0000 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 / \