From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Mon Dec 21 12:05:18 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 23A4D4B9327 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 12:05:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@freebsd.org) Received: from home.opsec.eu (home.opsec.eu [IPv6:2001:14f8:200::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CzypP6Bqmz3FPj for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 12:05:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from pi@freebsd.org) Received: from pi by home.opsec.eu with local (Exim 4.94 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from ) id 1krJw1-000MDF-QA; Mon, 21 Dec 2020 13:05:05 +0100 Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 13:05:05 +0100 From: Kurt Jaeger To: "Dan Mahoney (Gushi)" Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: DMA -- difference between base and port? Message-ID: References: <27a72fde-d96c-25e6-ff62-85767da510b7@prime.gushi.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <27a72fde-d96c-25e6-ff62-85767da510b7@prime.gushi.org> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4CzypP6Bqmz3FPj X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; ASN(0.00)[asn:12502, ipnet:2001:14f8::/32, country:DE] 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: Mon, 21 Dec 2020 12:05:18 -0000 Hi! > 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. > > 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? Yes, thanks for the heads-up. Can you submit patches against the base 'dma' man page and the port dma for those issues ? -- pi@opsec.eu +49 171 3101372 Now what ?