It seems both of them install /usr/bin/vacation. Regarding to the Changelog of vacation, it is quite old (last entry is from somewhere in 2001). I'm not sure about the differences, but it looks vacation is now part of sendmail, so we should remove the package for vacation or set a blocking if sendmail is installed (otherwise one would switch between the two versions when a update to one of them is available). HTH, Jan
sendmail-8.12.10 (latest stable) installs vacation in /usr/bin. sendmail-8.12.11 (latest unstable) installs vacation in /bin. vacation-1.2.6.1 (latest) installs vacation in /usr/bin. Either way, it's sloppy. I agree with Jan that these packages should be blocked. I attached some diffs to implement this. I do not think the stand-alone vacation ebuild should be removed, though. How much active development could there be on an application like this? haha Also, it's at least useful to people who do not use sendmail. Finally, just to keep things current, sendmail is now in mail-mta.
Created attachment 33250 [details, diff] sendmail-8.12.10.ebuild.diff
Created attachment 33251 [details, diff] sendmail-8.12.11-r3.ebuild.diff
Created attachment 33252 [details, diff] vacation-1.2.6.1.ebuild.diff
Ok, I added a block to net-mail/vacation, since phosphan (the maintainer) is currently on devaway. gregf, could you please add the block to sendmail ebuilds?
A new sendmail-8.13.1-r1 ebuild is masked in portage now and it has a block for net-mail/vacation. Testing is appreciated :)
That seems to work just fine. Please unmask. :)
Fixed.
