From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 2 14:08:16 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 C6B3E37B401 for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:08:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.liwing.de (mail.liwing.de [213.70.188.162]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D293F43FBD for ; Wed, 2 Apr 2003 14:08:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rehsack@liwing.de) Received: (qmail 61158 invoked from network); 2 Apr 2003 22:08:13 -0000 Received: from stingray.liwing.de (HELO liwing.de) ([213.70.188.164]) (envelope-sender ) by mail.liwing.de (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 2 Apr 2003 22:08:13 -0000 Message-ID: <3E8B5F4D.8020301@liwing.de> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 00:08:13 +0200 From: Jens Rehsack Organization: LiWing IT-Services User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: config@freebsd.org References: <3E8B093D.4010500@liwing.de> <3E8B579B.AB82C225@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: John Baldwin 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 22:08:17 -0000 Terry Lambert wrote: > Jens Rehsack wrote: > >>John Baldwin wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>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. > > > > So we are back to: > > o breaking the base system into packages, As it's already done with crypto, krb5, src, ... > o either pre-installed with package alternatives to > allow deinstall and reinstall, OR No, not deinstall. Decide on first binary sysinstall, maybe with writing a template /etc/make.conf respecting the packages you didn't want. > o we are into seperately packaging all mail servers, > picking the current one as default, and hacking the > heck out of sysinstall to make sure there's a seperate > choice item to get one installed No, if someone decides not having eg. an mta (s)he should know about the risk and consequences. > ...all so that programs that require the ability to send local > mail, many of them base systems components, can function. Only if the wrapper is configured correct (eg. for mail) or not, eg. if ppp or g77 is required but not available. > That's what I said in the first place. > > So we are agreed. I meant other. Maybe now it's more clear. > The correct mailing lists for this discussion are config@freebsd.org > and install@freebsd.org. > > I've set followups to config@freebsd.org to indicate my own > bias and the total lack of space for more sysinstall code on the > install floppy... Just 2 more lists to subscribe :-) - may local folder list get slowly huge :-) Regards, Jens