broken getopt

[Roman Neuhauser]

# lists at webtent.net / 2005-09-02 08:43:21 -0400:
> On Thu, 2005-09-01 at 23:36 -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote:
> > --On Tuesday, August 30, 2005 8:08 AM -0400 Robert Fitzpatrick 
> > <lists at webtent.net> wrote:
> > >> If you really must link Postfix with libraries that slurp-up GNU getopt,
> > >> "fix" the definition of GETOPT() in sys/util/sys_defs.h. Perhaps there
> > >> should be a CCARGS override for this...
> > >>
> > >
> > > I'll have to say I have no idea what these guys are talking about on the
> > > Postfix list, it must be some port I've installed that has linked in a
> > > way they suggest. I have not done anything except install very common
> > > ports on this FreeBSD mail server with no special linking or compile
> > > options, etc. All ran smooth until the latest portupgrade of Postfix and
> > > other related packages - amavisd-new, SpamAssassin, etc. Can someone
> > > here perhaps suggest how I might track down this problem?
> > >
> > make rmconfig, then run install again - this time don't select SPF.  That 
> > should solve your problem.  The problem isn't with gnu getopt.  It's with 
> > SPF.
> 
> So, I cannot use the SPF support? I have two customers on this transport
> server that use SPF records. Also, this is a production server and I
> need to be sure of my process for re-install. I assume by what you're
> saying above, I should run 'make rmconfig' to remove configurations and
> then re-install on top of what's there, or does rmconfig do more?
> Actually it looks like there is another version ready in the port system
> one minor higher than mine, can't I just run portupgrade and don't
> select SPF? And if I do that, should I still run rmconfig? Thanks for
> the help.

    The rmconfig target (and related ones) is described in ports(7).

-- 
How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb?
You don't know, man.  You don't KNOW.
Cause you weren't THERE.             http://bash.org/?255991