From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 2 11:29:33 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB5F37B401 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 11:29:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail15.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.215]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A8B043FBD for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 11:29:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 28582 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 19:29:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender )encrypted SMTP for ; 2 Apr 2003 19:29:37 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h32JTTOv023621; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:29:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.4 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3E8B093D.4010500@liwing.de> Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 14:29:30 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Jens Rehsack cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removing Sendmail X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2003 19:29:33 -0000 On 02-Apr-2003 Jens Rehsack wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: >> On 02-Apr-2003 Peter Schultz wrote: >> >>>I'm sorry for beating a dead horse. A guy and I from tcbug were just >>>trying to fix his postfix installation, he does not know what happened, >>>it just stopped working. There would not have been a problem if >>>sendmail wasn't tied into the system so closely. I'm just hoping core >>>will say, "submit a working solution and it will be done," so that >>>there's a little inspiration here. >>> >>>Pete... >> >> >> First, core@ is not the appropriate body for that type of request. >> Both current@ and arch@ are much better targets. Second, is >> NO_SENDMAIL + the postfix port inadequate? >> > > The problem I see with that is, that even a minimalistic base install > installs things like sendmail, ppp, atm-stuff, g77 and so on. Unless you are building an embedded device these are not really all that significant. If you are building an embedded device, you probably are better off building an in-house custom release. NO_SENDMAIL, etc. can aid in simplifying the build of such a release and help prevent breakage to an existing environment during world upgrades. That seems to be a fairly decent solution to me. > I really think splitting the base in some sub-parts would it make much > easier to do NO_SENDMAIL on my own. So I had to remove each not required > file separately. That's no good solution. [stepping back a bit ] I find an odd situation here whenever this topic comes up. One the one hand, people are always wanting to split the entire base system up into small packages for each little piece of the base. On the other hand, one of FreeBSD's selling points in real-world environments is that it doesn't have a bunch of little packages for the base system like Linux distros. Do people really prefer something like having rpm's for /bin/ps to having one lump base dist for all of /bin, /sbin, etc.? -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/