On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 19:48:48 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > Sahil Tandon: > > I do not believe Mark should have to jump through extra hoops, or that > > you should revert the change. This is a FreeBSD port-specific problem > > created by me that I will address as soon as I can. > > Considering the short time left before the next stable release I > am considering the following schedule: > > - Revert to Postfix 2.8 behavior, and complete the 2.9 release cycle. > > - In the 2.10 development cycle, make Postfix build on hosts that > have no network interfaces. That would eliminate problems like > Mark's hosts without IPv4, FreeBSD "port" builds on hosts with > dysfunctional IPv6, and other weird environments. > > - In the 2.10 development cycle, (re)start the first phase of the > IPv6-on-by-default transition, and do this early enough that there > is time to make sure that all maintainers are on board.
Shall follow along this new route, or I can modify the Postfix development port so that (happy to modify this as you deem appropriate): 1) fresh installs without existing main.cf use the new default inet_protocols setting. 2) sites with an existing main.cf WITHOUT inet_protocols defined have the ipv4 line added as you currently do via post-install. 3) sites with an existing main.cf WITH inet_protocols defined just keep their inet_protocols as is. Again, I'm already working on making the port work within the context of how you're currenting shipping development snapshots, but am on board with whichever path you choose from here. Won't make any changes until your decision is final so as to minimize further hassles. -- Sahil Tandon
pgpnJTskeyC6H.pgp
Description: PGP signature
