Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 22 Apr 2001 13:20:03 -0700 (PDT)
From:      "Ajay 'Hyperreductionist' T" <atallam@gcast.com>
To:        freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: ports/26634: The postfix port won't build with options
Message-ID:  <200104222020.f3MKK3s17514@freefall.freebsd.org>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/26634; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Ajay 'Hyperreductionist' T <atallam@gcast.com>
To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <dwcjr@inethouston.net>
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: ports/26634: The postfix port won't build with options
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 13:08:27 -0700

 * David W. Chapman Jr. <dwcjr@inethouston.net> [010422 10:16], about 
 > Re: ports/26634: The postfix port won't build with options:
 :The TLS patches don't get updated when a new version of them isn't required
 :(i.e. when the code that the diffs modify hasn't changed).  Same with ipv6.
 :They don't mix because they are separate patches from two different vendors
 :that modify the same code in some places.
 :
 >-- End of excerpt from David W. Chapman Jr.
 
 	I already agreed with you on that (I thought that was the problem
 originally because the port had been updated to the release's pl01 and there
 were new tls patches available for pl1).
 But that's a non-issue already, since the port apparently does build
 cleanly/fine as-is, all I stated was that the port should be fixed so that
 either both patches can apply (a TLS+IPv6 combo patch/option), or the port
 be fixed, so that it doesn't allow a user to choose incompatible options.
 (It's only, you know, logical.)  Again, short-term this can be done by
 modifying the description of the options (TLS and IPv6, to state this.)
 
 Anywho..

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200104222020.f3MKK3s17514>