Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 07:52:57 -0500 From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: cem@freebsd.org Cc: freebsd.arch@clogic.com.ua, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Sendmail deprecation ? Message-ID: <4C07192B-7B02-4A39-BEE5-CF60C6B2A335@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <CAG6CVpXCWyWPve3q0iJq_k2P66cFXxJiwj%2BwH2czFJDK8DvDdA@mail.gmail.com> References: <eeaa550f5b9f62d56dfc17d4f0a3b64d@clogic.com.ua> <201712111451.vBBEpjIW081611@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> <20171211195938.dxfji2pf2sq63my7@chittenden.org> <87882E8D-4A55-4F72-A897-7FD0FCD28DDB@freebsd.org> <CAG6CVpXCWyWPve3q0iJq_k2P66cFXxJiwj%2BwH2czFJDK8DvDdA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Dec 11, 2017, at 7:11 PM, Conrad Meyer <cem@freebsd.org> wrote:
>=20
>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> wr=
ote:
>> 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 regardles=
s of whether it is in -base or -ports.
>=20
> pkg-base is totally orthogonal to the selection of what components we
> want to have in base.
That's sort of my point, in reverse. Don't use "if you want softwareX, just=
'pkg install softwareX'" as a reason to remove softwareX from 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.
How do they remove sendmail once it's installed ('rm' is so quaint ;-))?. T=
hey can't pkg remove it. And when upgrading from media again, it gets reins=
talled? When base is pkg-ized, once it's pkg removed it is never reinstalle=
d when upgrading. It is also easier to turn off the installation defaults w=
ith pkg base, so that some software is never installed by default. Sure, wh=
en building and installing world it, you have the WITHOUT knobs, but that do=
esn't help other common installation methods.
>> The question should be, where do we want to maintain it? (There's also t=
he history that exists in base that gets disconnected when it's in ports.)
>>=20
>> -base is a set of packages that we deem more important than ports. Does s=
endmail, as it is exists and configured in -base, pass muster for being some=
thing that we consider important enough to warrant being in base? I think t=
his is more of the question to ask than "why can't they install it from port=
s?" Consensus seems to indicate no, but that we need some mail delivery age=
nt.
>>=20
>> I also think it should be incumbent on whomever removes something from -b=
ase to make a port of it.
>=20
> 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.)
>=20
>> I don't think we should just throw it over the fence and expect the ports=
team to do the work, unless they volunteer for it.
>=20
> mail/sendmail has been available as a port since 2000.
But that port reportedly doesn't have the FreeBSD configuration files that w=
e have in base. You'd be pushing the burden of maintaining them onto the po=
rts maintainer, making sure they work on all supported branches; they may no=
t want that responsibility.
--
DE=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C07192B-7B02-4A39-BEE5-CF60C6B2A335>