On Apr 29, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > On Apr 29, 2012, at 16:19, Bjarne D Mathiesen wrote: > >> so in conclusion: >> >> the way conflicts for variants is declared in the dovecot2 Porfile is >> not correct and ought to be written as it is in the postfix Portfile. > > Yes, you're right. > > The conflicts in the mysql5 variant of the dovecot2 port (and the other > database variants of that port, now that I look at them) are describing > conflicts between *ports*. This is not usually done in a variant, and it > doesn't look like that's what the author meant to do here either. > > The conflicts in the mysql5 variant of the postfix port are describing > conflicts between the *variants* of the postfix port. That's perfectly > normal, and is probably what the author of the dovecot2 port meant to do > there as well.
With regard to the dovecot2 conflicts they are intended to be variant conflicts and should be moved to the other side of the curly brace. It is a bug in the dovecot2 Portfile. Regards, Bradley Giesbrecht (pixilla)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
