From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 22 09:21:35 2005 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 91A2016A4CE; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:21:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from voodoo.oberon.net (voodoo.oberon.net [212.118.165.100]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25AFE43D31; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:21:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from krion@voodoo.oberon.net) Received: from krion by voodoo.oberon.net with local (Exim 4.50 (FreeBSD)) id 1DDfZw-000FMa-PO; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:21:36 +0100 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:21:36 +0100 From: Kirill Ponomarew To: Ion-Mihai Tetcu Message-ID: <20050322092136.GE48982@voodoo.oberon.net> References: <200503210441.j2L4fQRB021246@svm.csie.ntu.edu.tw> <20050322084911.GA21666@heechee.tobez.org> <20050322110303.036cd9e5@it.buh.tecnik93.com> <20050322091003.GC48982@voodoo.oberon.net> <20050322111931.58b85961@it.buh.tecnik93.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050322111931.58b85961@it.buh.tecnik93.com> X-NCC-Regid: de.oberon X-NIC-HDL: KP869-RIPE cc: Rong-En Fan cc: Marcus Grando cc: Anton Berezin cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org cc: sem@FreeBSD.org cc: Cheng-Lung Sung cc: edwin@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mail/policyd name conflict 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: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:21:35 -0000 On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:19:31AM +0200, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote: > > > > > Policyd is an anti-spam plugin for Postfix (written in C) that does > > > > > greylisting, sender (envelope or SASL) based throttling (on messages > > > > > and/or volume per defined time unit) and Spamtrap monitoring / > > > > > blacklisting. > > > > > > > > > > Author: cami@mweb.co.za > > > > > WWW: http://policyd.sourceforge.net/ > > > > > > > > clsung brought to my attention that we in fact already have a > > > > mail/policyd port. I would imagine that typically in this situation > > > > this would mean tough luck for the newer submission. In this instance, > > > > however, it looks like the "policyd" name really suits the new port > > > > better than the existing one, which is: > > > > > > > > This is a C port of Meng Wong's policyd for Postfix. The original > > > > code is available from http://spf.pobox.com/postfix-policyd.txt. > > > > It implements SPF for postfix, as a policy daemon. > > > > > > > > WWW: http://www.libspf2.org/ > > > > > > > > So, while both ports use postfix'es policy mechanism, the new port is > > > > much broader in scope. > > > > > > > > So I'd like to suggest to rename the existing mail/policyd to > > > > mail/policyd-spf, for example. > > > > > > So a repo for his one. > > > > > > > It might be a good idea to rename the new port to mail/policyd-somethingelse > > > > anyway, if we can come up with a sufficiently descriptive (and short!) > > > > "somethingelse" part. > > > > > > Supposing is w/o "something" part, what will this do to portversion (is > > > it going to go backwards ?) and how will we protect users from self > > > shooting by portupgrading from the old one to the new one w/o noticing ? > > > > ports/MOVED > > So this actually works if you still have a port with the same name ? Of course not, but renaming the port and adding info into UPDATING would save the souls of some people. -Kirill