Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 17:07:45 +0200 From: Pietro Cerutti <gahr@FreeBSD.org> To: Beech Rintoul <beech@freebsd.org>, 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: <20110831150744.GI45443@gahrfit.gahr.ch> In-Reply-To: <201108301345.25661.beech@freebsd.org> References: <201108300823.p7U8NIfD038098@repoman.freebsd.org> <4E5D26E2.7040300@gmx.de> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1108301353530.66881@io-tx.com> <201108301345.25661.beech@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--c7hkjup166d4FzgN Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2011-Aug-30, 13:45, Beech Rintoul wrote: > 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 d= on'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 >=20 > I second that, I also have it installed in several places and haven't had= any=20 > problems. I don't want to have to move to another app just because someon= e=20 > feels like deprecating a mature port. I think the old addage "if it ain't= =20 > broke" applies here. +1 here! Please stop this deprecation madness and stop thinking that our users are a bunch of stupids. I use procmail daily and I don't have any problems with it. If we want to deprecate ports basing on the potential damage caused by their misuse, I'd start with everything prefixed with lang/ or devel/. --=20 Pietro Cerutti The FreeBSD Project gahr@FreeBSD.org PGP Public Key: http://gahr.ch/pgp --c7hkjup166d4FzgN Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk5eTj8ACgkQwMJqmJVx9455JgCglpiC3kLOEJcx8DvWFGowfQ7l gsMAniKBZSJ7mQxEfhdkq7aduGgtG70n =b4eu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --c7hkjup166d4FzgN--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110831150744.GI45443>