Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:58:05 -0700 From: "Michael C. Shultz" <ringworm@inbox.lv> To: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: postfix port version numbering -- suggestions wanted Message-ID: <200404281158.06331.ringworm@inbox.lv> In-Reply-To: <AC962F6D-9940-11D8-B6E4-000A9578CFCC@khera.org> References: <AC962F6D-9940-11D8-B6E4-000A9578CFCC@khera.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 28 April 2004 11:20 am, Vivek Khera wrote: > During the freeze, postfix 2.1 was released, and postfix 2.2 > "development" branch was started. It is fairly self-evident that the > postfix-current port should become the 2.2 version. What is not clear > is how to handle the transition from the 2.0 to 2.1 as the "release" > version. > > Currently there are three postfix ports: postfix1, postfix, and > postfix-current. Obviously, enough people still run postfix 1.x to > need a postfix1 port. So my thought is to make a postfix20 port for > the now old 2.0 line, and have the postfix port be the 2.1 release. > This way people can upgrade as they see fit, and if they have a burning > desire to still run 2.0.x, they can. Or is there any point in having a > 2.0 sitting about? They're totally backward compatible. > > What do other postfix users out there think? I'm holding off > submitting the PR's until we decide on what to do. > > Please follow up to the list. I read it. My opinion is just as long as there is a stable postfix in mail/postfix ( no version number ) I could care less if there are also mail/postfix1 mail/postfix3 etc... -Mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200404281158.06331.ringworm>