On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 03:48:49 -0800 per...@pluto.rain.com articulated: > Pav Lucistnik <p...@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > The build jails are configured to have only IPv4 address on lo0, > > but the host have both IPv4 and IPv6 configured on its lo0. > > Even disregarding RFC3513, is an IPv6-enabled kernel without an IPv6 > address on lo0 a realistic configuration for a "real" FreeBSD system? > If not, I'd think it worthwhile to make pointyhat more realistic. > (Either way, it seems unobjectionable to improve the robustness of > postfix, making it more liberal in what it accepts.) > > > Changing the jail configuration is possible but if a reasonable > > workaround can be made in postfix-current port I'd prefer not to > > touch pointyhat configuration (unexpected consequences and all > > that...) > > It may be a bit late in the 9.0 release cycle to be messing with the > pointyhat configuration, but an adjustment might be considered after > 9.0-RELEASE is done.
"postfix-current" -- 2.9.20111012,4 has been unmarked BROKEN on amd64 and builds without incident. I hope the actual current version, ie postfix-2.9-20111117.tar.gz will be in the ports system soon. I would like to thank Sahil Tandon <sa...@freebsd.org> for his efforts in getting this valuable port problem corrected. Interestingly enough, and I cannot prove it to anyone's satisfaction, but I did mention to a colleague that if I posted on the ports forum regrading this problem and could get Wietse involved, the problem would be corrected within 24 hours. -- Jerry ♔ Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the Reply-To header. __________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"