Created attachment 227021 [details] Updates port to 3.3.9 and makes port structural changes Update to 3.3.9 Other changes: -Dropped xmlrpc support as it's dead and no one missed it -Virtual vacation scripts and IMAP module are now optional For a summary of upstream changes, see: https://github.com/postfixadmin/postfixadmin/blob/postfixadmin-3.3.9/CHANGELOG.TXT
Thank you for submitting this port update. Given the upgrade path, dependency set (mysql, php, et al) changes, one might consider either adding a postfixadmin33 port (copied from mail/postfixadmin), allowing users to upgrade on their own schedule, or adding a pkg-message so that users are notified as clearly as possible that upgrading to 3.3+ requires manual intervention. UPDATING is mostly insufficient for these cases.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 257238 ***
(In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #2) No, please close the other one.
(In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #1) I can understand that point, but it's an outsider's perspective. The changelog is clear and any postfixadmin upgrade involves an in-app setup process that covers the manual steps. The manual step itself, despite being exceptional this time, is still trivial: enter the setup password on setup.php and copy the provided hash to config.local.php. It's really not as disruptive as it looks. On top of that 3.2 is actually very out of date. It would actualy be MORE disruptive to make people switch pkg origins.
Re-open this since it was closed without adequate communication.
(In reply to Rin Morningstar from comment #4) Just a review item, and clarifying such associated considerations up front can help immensely with review, particularly for those without in-depth knowledge into any particular piece of software. That the user experience of the upgrade has been well considered is entirely the purpose, so thank you for the detail. If you could also: - Confirm the port (patch) passes QA, that would be great. - Clarify whether this change should be merged to the quarterly branch (bugfixes, security) or not Thanks!
(In reply to Kubilay Kocak from comment #6) Yes, portlint, portclippy, portfmt, port test, and poudriere testport all passed and I've been eating my own dogfood for a while now. Yes, it should MFH. When 3.3.10 lands, it will include a fix for a clickjacking vulnerability, and the bug I submit to update to 3.3.10 will be blocked by this one.
(In reply to Rin Morningstar from comment #7) Thanks for the timely feedback!
Comment on attachment 227021 [details] Updates port to 3.3.9 and makes port structural changes Patch rejected, obseleted by later work
Due to in-tree changes, the patch here no longer applies. Instead of working up a new intermediate, the revised patch in ports/257845 upgrades from 3.2.4. Closing this bug as it's been superseded.