Bug in ports howto question

[Allan Bowhill]

On  0, Roman Neuhauser <neuhauser at bellavista.cz> wrote:

:    hm, sysinstall could probably ask for an IP of your smarthost, and
:    configure sendmail accordingly.

That would be great, but there are problems with this.

1. If the user chooses another MTA like exim or postfix

2. If the user needs smtp-auth for sendmail he needs to recompile with
   SSL a port and cyrus-sasl, which is in ports. In addition to that he
   needs special make.conf modifications, and a warning that his
   compiled copy of sendmail will become inoperable if he makes world.

I don't know if there would be a good solution to this other than
creating a 3rd party port/package that does it all in one go.

:> If you mean that ports should be accepted by some other mechanism?
:> 
:> Yes, definitely.
:
:    I disagree. There's already an establish channel for patch
:    submissions, why duplicate efforts?

Becuase the current channels are inadequate for some people. Not
sure how many.

: I think there could be a mini-cvs utility, just with a few features
:> defined to allow new ports to be submitted to a different repository,
:> separate from ports (which is already . branch).
:> 
:> I also think it would be cool if there were a freebsd third-party 
:> developer portal that kept this repository, accounts etc. like 
:> SourceForge, but for ports. Maybe call it PortsForge :)
:> 
:> That way, maintainers and new contributors could keep an open source
:> base of stuff they committed to the portal, while committers could
:> peruse the portal for new software to carry-over to the ports collection.
:
:    this has been discussed on this list, started, and announced here
:    during the last two weeks.

Yes. Someone wrote me about this today.
	(http://sourceforge.net/projects/portrookies/). 

I will check it out. It sounds interesting.

-- 
Allan Bowhill
abowhill at blarg.net

The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go
to erase it.
                -- Glaser and Way