Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:45:25 -0800 From: Beech Rintoul <beech@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Cc: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de>, Ted Hatfield <ted@io-tx.com> Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/mail/procmail Makefile Message-ID: <201108301345.25661.beech@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1108301353530.66881@io-tx.com> References: <201108300823.p7U8NIfD038098@repoman.freebsd.org> <4E5D26E2.7040300@gmx.de> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1108301353530.66881@io-tx.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart3649567.VCpAAKgml0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tuesday 30 August 2011 11:01:18 Ted Hatfield wrote: > 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. > >>=20 > >> "code, not policy" ... ? > >=20 > > Well... is _is_ policy and meant as such. We make decisions for ports > > users all the time, and this is no exception. >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Ted Hatfield I second that, I also have it installed in several places and haven't had a= ny=20 problems. I don't want to have to move to another app just because someone= =20 feels like deprecating a mature port. I think the old addage "if it ain't=20 broke" applies here. Beech =2D-=20 =2D------------------------------------------------------------------------= =2D------------- Beech Rintoul - FreeBSD Developer - beech@FreeBSD.org /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | FreeBSD Since 4.x \ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail | http://people.freebsd.org/~beech X - NO Word docs in e-mail | Skype: akbeech / \ - http://www.FreeBSD.org/releases/8.2R/announce.html =2D------------------------------------------------------------------------= =2D------------- --nextPart3649567.VCpAAKgml0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD) iEYEABECAAYFAk5dWfUACgkQFrTqt+y/3EQatACeOUzutUqiiDHoMRTHFDV9Z+Bp sqEAoIGvAcqj9WW76bgpMU3PBcnYLQLw =vOze -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3649567.VCpAAKgml0--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201108301345.25661.beech>