From owner-freebsd-arch Wed Jun 19 11: 0:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from axl.seasidesoftware.co.za (axl.seasidesoftware.co.za [196.31.7.201]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FD1637B403; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sheldonh by axl.seasidesoftware.co.za with local (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17Kjlh-0001Xc-00; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 20:01:21 +0200 Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 20:01:21 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: David O'Brien Cc: Gregory Neil Shapiro , Doug Barton , "Jin Guojun[DSD]" , "Crist J. Clark" , FreeBSD-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: conf/39444: rc.sendmail syntax error: cannot disable sendmail Message-ID: <20020619180121.GA5897@starjuice.net> Mail-Followup-To: David O'Brien , Gregory Neil Shapiro , Doug Barton , "Jin Guojun[DSD]" , "Crist J. Clark" , FreeBSD-arch@FreeBSD.org References: <3D0FB406.83DE356D@lbl.gov> <20020618155900.O2483-100000@master.gorean.org> <15632.6996.519381.823439@horsey.gshapiro.net> <3D102055.F08DD2AE@FreeBSD.org> <15632.9131.365021.260177@horsey.gshapiro.net> <20020619104912.B41546@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020619104912.B41546@dragon.nuxi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On (2002/06/19 10:49), David O'Brien wrote: > > sendmail_enable=NO > > sendmail_submit_enable=NO > > sendmail_outbound_enable=NO > > sendmail_msp_queue_enable=NO > > Yes. Since you fully support this, I don't understand what the issue is. > People have old configurations that want "sendmail_enable=NO" to equal > the above? Too bad, there are many configuration changes to learn when > going from -stable to -current. So they will just have to learn there is > more granularity now. Ah, but the problem is that submit_enable, outbound_enable and msp_queue_enable were new additions on the RELENG_4 branch, so the user expectations of interest are those of users tracking -STABLE, not those upgrading from -STABLE to -CURRENT. From the beginning, this whole thing has been about a POLA violation on the -STABLE branch. That said, what's done is done, and it's unlikely that any further changes are going to improve the situation. Ciao, Sheldon. -- Sheldon Hearn Postmaster - Gambling.com In systems administration, a change is NOT as good as a holiday! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message