cvs commit: ports/mail/procmail Makefile

Beech Rintoul beech at
Tue Aug 30 21:45:28 UTC 2011

On Tuesday 30 August 2011 11:01:18 Ted Hatfield wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Matthias Andree wrote:
> > Am 30.08.2011 19:57, schrieb Mark Linimon:
> >> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 07:44:12PM +0200, Matthias Andree wrote:
> >>> It only warns, it does not prevent fresh installs on systems that don't
> >>> have the same port/package already installed.
> >> 
> >> "code, not policy" ... ?
> > 
> > Well... is _is_ policy and meant as such.  We make decisions for ports
> > users all the time, and this is no exception.
> If procmail has no ongoing security issues and it compiles and installs
> with no problems what's the reasoning behind removing it from the ports
> tree?
> As far as I can see the reasoning advocated at this time is that
> procmail hasn't been in active development since 2001.  Shouldn't that
> be seen as a sign of stability.
> I'm not a software developer so maybe I'm missing something obvious
> about this situation.  Feel free to educate/convice me that I should
> make the effort to switch from procmail to maildrop.
> I've been using procmail now for 16 years and I'm very happy with it's
> performance.  Moving to maildrop would be a significant amount of effort
> for both me and my users.
> Ted Hatfield

I second that, I also have it installed in several places and haven't had any 
problems. I don't want to have to move to another app just because someone 
feels like deprecating a mature port. I think the old addage "if it ain't 
broke" applies here.


Beech Rintoul - FreeBSD Developer - beech at
/"\   ASCII Ribbon Campaign  | FreeBSD Since 4.x
\ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail  |
 X  - NO Word docs in e-mail | Skype: akbeech
/ \ -

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url :

More information about the freebsd-ports mailing list