[csw-maintainers] the problem of imapd

[Philip Brown]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:53 AM, Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Excerpts from James Lee's message of Wed Feb 16 05:10:26 -0500 2011:
>>
>>> Recommendation: Tag as incompatible.
>>
>> I'm ok with this.
>>
>
> I'm not. It breaks our long-standing standards that installing
> everything is okay.
>
> (reminder: if you use autoenable_daemons=no in csw.conf, you can
> install everything, but not have any port conflicts, becuase nothing
> is started up on any port, except what you explicitly choose to enable
> on that specific machine)

Another point why this policy makes sense, even on a relatively small,
single-server installation, at a small site:

Allowing the multiple types to be installed, even if only one is
active at a time, allows the local sysadmin the freedom to do limited
trial tests of alternatives implementations.

- Start with sendmail? okay. All set up, things looking good
(couple of months down the road...)
 Hmm.. I wonder if postfix would be better?
- installs postfix, on SAME BOX, initially on different port. plays
around for a few days, gets it happy,
and then does an almost transparent switchover when happy with it.

Cant do that if postfix conflicts with sendmail.