mail/policyd name conflict

[Ion-Mihai Tetcu]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:21:36 +0100
Kirill Ponomarew <krion at voodoo.oberon.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 11:19:31AM +0200, Ion-Mihai Tetcu wrote:
> > > > > > Policyd is an anti-spam plugin for Postfix (written in C) that does
> > > > > > greylisting, sender (envelope or SASL) based throttling (on messages
> > > > > > and/or volume per defined time unit) and Spamtrap monitoring /
> > > > > > blacklisting.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Author:	cami at mweb.co.za
> > > > > > WWW:	http://policyd.sourceforge.net/
> > > > > 
> > > > > clsung brought to my attention that we in fact already have a
> > > > > mail/policyd port.  I would imagine that typically in this situation
> > > > > this would mean tough luck for the newer submission.  In this instance,
> > > > > however, it looks like the "policyd" name really suits the new port
> > > > > better than the existing one, which is:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	This is a C port of Meng Wong's policyd for Postfix. The original
> > > > > 	code is available from http://spf.pobox.com/postfix-policyd.txt.
> > > > > 	It implements SPF for postfix, as a policy daemon.
> > > > > 
> > > > > 	WWW: http://www.libspf2.org/
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, while both ports use postfix'es policy mechanism, the new port is
> > > > > much broader in scope.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So I'd like to suggest to rename the existing mail/policyd to
> > > > > mail/policyd-spf, for example.
> > > > 
> > > > So a repo for his one.
> > > > 
> > > > >  It might be a good idea to rename the new port to mail/policyd-somethingelse
> > > > > anyway, if we can come up with a sufficiently descriptive (and short!)
> > > > > "somethingelse" part.
> > > > 
> > > > Supposing is w/o "something" part, what will this do to portversion (is
> > > > it going to go backwards ?) and how will we protect users from self
> > > > shooting by portupgrading from the old one to the new one w/o noticing ?
> > > 
> > > ports/MOVED
> > 
> > So this actually works if you still have a port with the same name ?
> 
> Of course not, 

I was very eager to see the piece of code that would accomplish that :)

> but renaming the port and adding info into UPDATING would save the souls of
> some people.

I'd do the copy and MOVED entry, wait for a week or so and then bring in
the new port.


-- 
IOnut
Unregistered ;) FreeBSD "user"