From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Tue Dec 12 00:17:59 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABBD2E80F26 for ; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:17:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cse.cem@gmail.com) Received: from mail-it0-f47.google.com (mail-it0-f47.google.com [209.85.214.47]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 789EE80BB8; Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:17:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cse.cem@gmail.com) Received: by mail-it0-f47.google.com with SMTP id o130so14977056itg.0; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:17:59 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references :from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lj1v+/6MxIm241hjLd9BT0tAdQERoSDN0wRk+qmF38c=; b=HkhjVxz8tFCR4qyYTMbMTf2OS97zQrrRr5aYEsPvxjwzjZrnsniO6BGwjgdqtCzOyy YAjBGahd0B4BKyieJ4fz+Rr9KUy6eWVDY924+WQfT+RK9js5N4lASjOz4vZTFty5lsHn kzqe1nsjiikuWP9vXZ9WAIv88+EX+Gw1XzjzNL0XPDI4IpgiXPQMjiFvRSgy2oSxWc8m QIW5yMAYcXbmSBNhSAhudZDBJMBdS6ZGF3sGKtU5Iy3/JhM3kTxUOlZS9IR0IwKUaDuh Oa8jCW6ltQDdGHAsTczmuux8A0IxzKgXmDjEOU3BW/Co9rU4AJ2LnfABnyocrTJYoG/g grMA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mK5yAsRBsAeP02fPGgI2SXbkX6ZoQzSxCSRHfipncyZl6KBMajh CPxANlq2Wtp44/roRyxbN0cVdlag X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBou+5jNEzzGOJtESS8McTVt3Ao5cH2NJcCG3Z45CqRA/PO3tB5pFRox6EFnEyMW+QVwKB7n+1A== X-Received: by 10.36.173.92 with SMTP id a28mr148137itj.122.1513037502745; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:11:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-it0-f46.google.com (mail-it0-f46.google.com. [209.85.214.46]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i82sm3078273iod.6.2017.12.11.16.11.41 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:11:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-it0-f46.google.com with SMTP id m11so14963670iti.1; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:11:41 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.107.7.169 with SMTP id g41mr3241105ioi.38.1513037501729; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:11:41 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: cem@freebsd.org Received: by 10.2.165.150 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:11:41 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <87882E8D-4A55-4F72-A897-7FD0FCD28DDB@freebsd.org> References: <201712111451.vBBEpjIW081611@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> <20171211195938.dxfji2pf2sq63my7@chittenden.org> <87882E8D-4A55-4F72-A897-7FD0FCD28DDB@freebsd.org> From: Conrad Meyer Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 16:11:41 -0800 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: RFC: Sendmail deprecation ? To: Daniel Eischen Cc: freebsd.arch@clogic.com.ua, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 00:17:59 -0000 On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Daniel Eischen wrot= e: > I do tend to agree with rgrimes, when -base is pkg-ized, folks will have = a chance to 'pkg install' or 'pkg remove' sendmail or anything else regardl= ess of whether it is in -base or -ports. pkg-base is totally orthogonal to the selection of what components we want to have in base. Base is really about defaults, and "what makes a FreeBSD system." There's no reason to block this change on pkgbase, or vice versa. People can remove the sendmail component on their system today, but it isn't the default. > The question should be, where do we want to maintain it? (There's also = the history that exists in base that gets disconnected when it's in ports.) > > -base is a set of packages that we deem more important than ports. Does = sendmail, as it is exists and configured in -base, pass muster for being so= mething that we consider important enough to warrant being in base? I thin= k this is more of the question to ask than "why can't they install it from = ports?" Consensus seems to indicate no, but that we need some mail deliver= y agent. > > I also think it should be incumbent on whomever removes something from -b= ase to make a port of it. I disagree with that idea in general. The burden lands on people who actually want to maintain the component, which may or may not overlap with the person removing it from base. Removing a component is not volunteering to maintain a port of that component, and shouldn't be. (Also, having people who are willing to maintain a component is not by itself sufficient justification for a component to remain in base.) > I don't think we should just throw it over the fence and expect the port= s team to do the work, unless they volunteer for it. mail/sendmail has been available as a port since 2000. Best, Conrad