From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sat Feb 27 12:14:59 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DE9EAB272B for ; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:14:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carmel_ny@outlook.com) Received: from BLU004-OMC3S23.hotmail.com (blu004-omc3s23.hotmail.com [65.55.116.98]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.outlook.com", Issuer "MSIT Machine Auth CA 2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BC5B94C; Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:14:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carmel_ny@outlook.com) Received: from BLU437-SMTP15 ([65.55.116.74]) by BLU004-OMC3S23.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Sat, 27 Feb 2016 04:14:52 -0800 X-TMN: [B3rJ9S6N6/IJ3w1lTaZPJfGqsknemfWv] X-Originating-Email: [carmel_ny@outlook.com] Message-ID: X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99 at scorpio.seibercom.net Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 07:14:38 -0500 From: Carmel To: FreeBSD Ports CC: ohauer@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: mail/postfix and mail/postfix-current need upgrading In-Reply-To: <7e27caa45fc106483ba96488a07ca1ee@mailbox.ijs.si> References: <3f2105db035fe8b639905002c7524b45@mailbox.ijs.si> <7e27caa45fc106483ba96488a07ca1ee@mailbox.ijs.si> Organization: Seibercom NET X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.13.2 (GTK+ 2.24.28; i686-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Feb 2016 12:14:52.0116 (UTC) FILETIME=[75FEF940:01D17158] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2016 12:14:59 -0000 On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 02:45:25 +0100, Mark Martinec stated: >|Obviously, the ports are not in sync with the current Stable and >|Experimental branches of Postfix. > >Olli Hauer wrote: >> No they are not and I plan the following to let users some time >> for the transition to 3.1. >> - mail/postfix (2.11.7) -> mail/postfix211 >> - mail/postfix-current (3.0.4) -> mail/postfix >> - postfix-current will be updated to 3.1.0 (released this week) >> >> In some weeks 3.1.x will become the default postfix, and 3.0.x >> will be removed from the tree, postfix211 will stay as the last >> postfix 2.x releases and current will become again current. >> There are some users using VDA patches, only available for >> postfix 2.8 but it also works on 2.11, there is no support from >> the VDA project for 3.x and it seems the VDA project is no longer >> alive. > > >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:29:43 -0800 (PST), Roger Marquis stated: >>> 3.2 is an experimental release. >>> It would be misleading to label it current. > >On 2016-02-26 20:32, Carmel wrote: >> The experimental version of Postfix has been labeled >> "postfix-current" for as long as I can remember. To change it now >> would really confuse some users. > > >This was indeed the case (postfix-current == "The experimental" >(development) version) a few years back. It was kept closely >up-to-date with the latest development release. I lived under >impression that it still is supposed to be so (but just happen >to be lagging a bit) - but apparently this is no longer so. > >I wish the postfix-current would track the latest development release >as it used to do. It made it possible for FreeBSD users to more >fruitfully contribute back to the project by quickly responding >to new features and potential problems. > >If this is deemed unsuitable, then there should be a new port >mail/postfix-devel to track the latest releases (although then >I don't know to what purpose a postfix-current would serve). > > Mark \mail\postfix-XXX Older versions of Postfix \mail\postfix-stable Latest stable version of Postfix \mail\postfix-current Experimental version of Postfix As each "experimental" becomes stable, it is given a "postfix-stable" designation and the old stable release is given a "postfix-XXX" designation. The new postfix experimental release then assumes the "postfix-current" title. My only concern with changing the name "postfix-current" to "postfix-devel" or whatever is for historical purposes. I have always known it by the latter designations plus I am not sure if it would cause a problem in the ports system if it were to be renamed. In any case, the "postfix" ports were always kept up-to-date in virtual real time. Now they seem to lag behind. I am unsure as to what has happened. -- Carmel -- Carmel