From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Oct 24 16:10:10 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B4B937B4C5 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id QAA22410; Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:10:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 16:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200010242310.QAA22410@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Gavin Cameron Subject: Re: ports/22269: qmail installation should also modify /etc/make.conf Reply-To: Gavin Cameron Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR ports/22269; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Gavin Cameron To: Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ports/22269: qmail installation should also modify /etc/make.conf Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 10:07:05 +1100 (EST) For those that never do a build world the parameter will never come into play. For those that do a build world I'm sure that they don't want their qmail installation corrupted or overwritten. Both of those points seem to say that putting the entry into /etc/make.conf is a good thing. Gavin []-----------------------------------+------------------------------------[] | Gavin Cameron | ITworks Consulting | | Ph : +61 3 9642 5477 | Level 8, 488 Bourke Street | | Fax : +61 3 9642 5499 | Melbourne, Victoria | | Email : gavin@itworks.com.au | Australia, 3000 | []-----------------------------------+------------------------------------[] On Tue, 24 Oct 2000, Mario Sergio Fujikawa Ferreira wrote: > > When qmail is installed out of the ports you do a > > make disable-sendmail > > and a > > make enable-qmail > > > > One of those commands should add a line to /etc/make.conf > > > > NO_SENDMAIL=true > > I am not sure I agree. Should both qmail and postfix > do this? I do not think so as I think this should be a aware > user choice. Specially because most users do not build world > and I am not sure those who do would prefer it that way. > However, I am open to argumentation. > Ports? > > -- > Mario S F Ferreira - UnB - Brazil - "I guess this is a signature." > lioux at ( freebsd dot org | linf dot unb dot br ) > flames to beloved devnull@someotherworldbeloworabove.org > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message