From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Tue Dec 29 14:25:43 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6635F4C0A2E for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:25:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ronald-lists@klop.ws) Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D4xXj6dKjz4dF9 for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:25:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ronald-lists@klop.ws) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=klop.ws; s=mail; h=In-Reply-To:Message-ID:From:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version: Date:References:Subject:Cc:To:Content-Type:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ln8czLw7K6578LHbZuIHzshTzCialtL2SkuXuGZhCnA=; b=KzzCycyToEdJ9V8c9Zeo3kh7qv 1CR0RSlF4UkVlWG1PfNo4Qn4oHScOqgOrZ8kVCgxlnSc5ERlAjhdFbmFfBRIWwWer9B+F0fiQOx1a YGR/HGU9OAeZXNBs18RbX9MmVG2RyaiKhruQziPJqKiyMkTvEEr3Xqs07BmOydyTF8kc=; Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: "Dan Mahoney (Gushi)" Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: DMA -- difference between base and port? References: <27a72fde-d96c-25e6-ff62-85767da510b7@prime.gushi.org> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 15:25:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Ronald Klop" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.16 (FreeBSD) X-Authenticated-As-Hash: 398f5522cb258ce43cb679602f8cfe8b62a256d1 X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.greenhost.nl X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Score: -0.4 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED, BAYES_50, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF autolearn=disabled version=3.4.2 X-Scan-Signature: 9484ae446d4f83cee8bf28db5146d16c X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4D4xXj6dKjz4dF9 X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=klop.ws header.s=mail header.b=KzzCycyT; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=klop.ws; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of ronald-lists@klop.ws designates 195.190.28.88 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=ronald-lists@klop.ws X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.50 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RBL_DBL_DONT_QUERY_IPS(0.00)[195.190.28.88:from]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[klop.ws:s=mail]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_GOOD(0.00)[195.190.28.88:from]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:195.190.28.64/27]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; SPAMHAUS_ZRD(0.00)[195.190.28.88:from:127.0.2.255]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[klop.ws:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[195.190.28.88:from]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[klop.ws,none]; RCVD_COUNT_ZERO(0.00)[0]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:47172, ipnet:195.190.28.0/24, country:NL]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-ports] X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2020 14:25:43 -0000 Some questions below. On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 01:56:04 +0100, Dan Mahoney (Gushi) wrote: > On Mon, 21 Dec 2020, Ronald Klop wrote: > >> On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 12:12:02 +0100, Dan Mahoney (Gushi) >> wrote: >> >>> Hey there, >>> At the day job we've been using mail/dma port for a number of years >>> now, and the rollout and config of files in /usr/local/etc/dma is part >>> of our deploy process. >>> It only recently occurred to us that there was a "dma" in base since >>> probably 11.0 (whomever wrote the release notes missed that -- and the >>> manpage doesn't mention when it was added to FreeBSD). >>> We notice that the "newaliases" function in /etc/mail/mailer.conf is >>> missing from the port version -- which means if you're using ports >>> dma, you probably want to set newaliases to something like >>> /usr/bin/true (dma doesn't use an aliases db, so there's no need to >>> rebuild one, as newaliases would). Again. something we noticed in our >>> deployment process with puppet. Why are you calling newaliases if dma does not use an aliases db? >>> I can't find a feature-by-feature comparison for what one would >>> install the port for (other than inertia, like we have). >>> There's no "version" command that I can find in DMA. (tried -h, -?, >>> -v --version, -V). >>> Does "our" DMA track the Dragonfly version (like the base sendmail or >>> openssl track world) or is it completely forked and unlikely to >>> incorporate changes? This would be useful in feature comparison. >>> Is it worth mentioning this in the pkg-message for mail/dma? >>> -Dan >>> >> >> On 13-CURRENT I have: >> # more /usr/src/contrib/dma/VERSION >> v0.11 >> >> But the version nr doesn't tell the whole story. There are some code >> syncs after 0.11. >> https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/commits/master/contrib/dma >> >> There is a PR to upgrade base to 0.13 already. >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244630 >> >> Would love to see a sync with even newer code. I made a fix upstream >> myself. > > Yes, my issue with "newaliases" failing actually comes down to two open > issues: > > 1) No released version will work with "newaliases" unless "newaliases" > is called as a bareword (so calling /usr/bin/newaliases, as puppet does, > causes you to get a "no recipients" error) This is fixed in dma head, > but not in either the current port version, or the freebsd base version. > I'm a bit confused. You say "this is fixed in dma head". I see no matching commit about this fix after 0.13 release in https://github.com/corecode/dma/commits/master . > We've tweaked it by telling our deploy tools (puppet) to call newaliases > and handing it a path, but we prefer to hand exec's full paths to > binaries. > > 2) DMA's still broken if you've got an alternate alias file defined, see > https://github.com/corecode/dma/issues/90 > > (Given, this is the ports mailing list, but those should also be fixed > in the ports version, with the latter perhaps being fixed one dma hits > 0.14 or whatever version number has that fix, rather than manually > patching 0.13.) > > -Dan > If I read it correctly I have the idea that your issue is in FreeBSD base, ports and the dma github code? So it seems it needs to be solved upstream first. I'm asking this, because I would like to have the 0.13 update in base and make sure that your issue is not a showstopper for this but a separate issue independend of the version of contrib/dma. Regards, Ronald.