| 1 |
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 20:03:45 +0200 "Eray Aslan" <eray.aslan@×××××××.tr> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
> Renat Golubchyk <mailto:ragermany@×××.net> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Anyway, why do you want to manage those programs yourself? |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Because of this patch for postfix: |
| 8 |
> http://sbserv.stahl.bau.tu-bs.de/~hildeb/postfix/duchovni/multi_instance.gz |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It makes managing / upgrading postfix with multi instances easier. |
| 11 |
> But it seems sticking with portage and managing the (infrequent) |
| 12 |
> upgrades by hand for the second instance of postfix is less work than |
| 13 |
> messing with ebuilds. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
You can copy the ebuild to your overlay and patch postfix from there. |
| 16 |
If you don't have to do anything else before compiling it then it's as |
| 17 |
trivial as "epatch /path/to/postfix.patch" somewhere in src_unpack(). |
| 18 |
Doing it this way has the benefit of letting portage manage your |
| 19 |
packages. You'll just have to keep an eye for upgrades, because they |
| 20 |
will probably come without this patch. If you want this patch to be |
| 21 |
included in postfix create a bug in bugzilla with the request. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Cheers, |
| 24 |
Renat |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Probleme kann man niemals mit derselben Denkweise loesen, |
| 28 |
durch die sie entstanden sind. |
| 29 |
(Einstein) |
Archives