Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 23 Dec 1999 11:02:47 +0200 (EET)
From:      Adrian Penisoara <ady@freebsd.ady.ro>
To:        Akinori MUSHA aka knu <knu@idaemons.org>
Cc:        freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: ports/14359: Update port: mail/imap-uw
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.10.9912231033170.15014-100000@ady.warpnet.ro>
In-Reply-To: <86ogbj2fb0.wl@localhost.local.idaemons.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,

On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Akinori MUSHA aka knu wrote:

> 	Hi!
> 
> 	Thanks! I've been so busy on my work I cannot take my time out
> hacking imap-utils... But I'm trying your new port, which seems
> working just fine! (I did 'make PAMAUTH=yes install')

 That's good news!

> 
> 	However, I've got something to point out, you know, imap-utils
> seem to be distributed *unofficially* as you can see the file called
> imap-utils.tar.Z isn't laid statically, that is to say, its md5
> checksum will change irregularly. A headache.

 That's bad news...
 Yep, the same thing we had with imap source tarball once in a while, when
it was in beta stage. I'll try talking to the author, maybe he could do us
a favour (like giving versions to the imap-utils package, moving the mlock
sources into the main source tarball, etc.).

> 
> 	Maybe we must have another master site to put the snapshots of
> it like imap-utils-4.7.tar.Z, imap-utils-4.8.tar.Z, etc? (Yes, .gz or
> .bz2 would be better)

 Hmm, we tried that when imap was in beta, Steve was holding a snapshot of
the tarball on his homepage -- but then we had other (minor) problems...

 But wait, isn't there an option to convince the port not to verify the
checksum for some of the source tarballs ?

 Ady (@freebsd.ady.ro)



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?Pine.BSF.4.10.9912231033170.15014-100000>