From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Aug 30 19:33:05 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1ED9106566B
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:33:05 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from ted@io-tx.com)
Received: from io-tx.com (io-tx.com [209.198.147.18])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 739508FC13
	for <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:33:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from io-tx.com (io-tx.com [209.198.147.18]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by io-tx.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p7UJ1IsG066990
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
	Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:01:18 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ted@io-tx.com)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 14:01:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: Ted Hatfield <ted@io-tx.com>
To: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>
In-Reply-To: <4E5D26E2.7040300@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1108301353530.66881@io-tx.com>
References: <201108300823.p7U8NIfD038098@repoman.freebsd.org>
	<4E5CC44C.3070604@FreeBSD.org>
	<20110830111152.GF28186@home.opsec.eu>
	<4E5CD28A.1080809@FreeBSD.org>
	<20110830122726.GG28186@home.opsec.eu>
	<4E5D0856.8080505@FreeBSD.org>
	<20110830163933.GC17573@lonesome.com>
	<CADLo838VNcjKLTTW2-420fs9cnP865WRXinqBTtP4sgu2Mttrg@mail.gmail.com>
	<4E5D216C.6070801@FreeBSD.org>
	<20110830175740.GA19289@lonesome.com> <4E5D26E2.7040300@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.1 at io-tx.com
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/procmail Makefile
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
	<mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 19:33:05 -0000

On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Matthias Andree wrote:

> Am 30.08.2011 19:57, schrieb Mark Linimon:
>> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:44:12PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
>>> It only warns, it does not prevent fresh installs on systems that don't
>>> have the same port/package already installed.
>>
>> "code, not policy" ... ?
>
> Well... is _is_ policy and meant as such.  We make decisions for ports
> users all the time, and this is no exception.

If procmail has no ongoing security issues and it compiles and installs 
with no problems what's the reasoning behind removing it from the ports 
tree?

As far as I can see the reasoning advocated at this time is that 
procmail hasn't been in active development since 2001.  Shouldn't that 
be seen as a sign of stability.

I'm not a software developer so maybe I'm missing something obvious 
about this situation.  Feel free to educate/convice me that I should 
make the effort to switch from procmail to maildrop.

I've been using procmail now for 16 years and I'm very happy with it's 
performance.  Moving to maildrop would be a significant amount of effort 
for both me and my users.

Ted Hatfield