On 2014/12/29 03:55, Ted Unangst wrote: > On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 22:18, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 02:09:24PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 12:42:37PM -0800, Philip Guenther wrote: > >> > > >> > Executive summary: delete the procmail port; the code is not safe and > >> > should not be used as a basis for any further work. > >> > >> It's still in ports. Has it not been deleted for a particular reason? > > > > What's the rush to remove it? What Philip said? Well in this case you can > > remove 75% of the ports tree. > > Not that I care, I'm just saying... because we're not talking about some > > obscure thing no one uses. > > Also, IIRC some other ports depend on it. > > I think the concern is indeed, that people do use it. We have a lot of > crap ports that people don't use, but that's fine. They're not used. > > For certain packages that are popular and dangerous, I think it makes > sense to remove them. People will ask where it went, and then we guide > them to better alternatives. We deleted the ethereal port, for example.
I don't believe there is any alternative to formail, which has wider use than just procmail. lockfile also needs handling (see my earlier mail in the thread for more details).
