From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 20 12:30:16 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C6405B8 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:30:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cdptpa-oedge-vip.email.rr.com (cdptpa-outbound-snat.email.rr.com [107.14.166.225]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98A81FDF for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:30:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [96.28.178.143] ([96.28.178.143:11784] helo=localhost) by cdptpa-oedge02 (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 3.5.0.35861 r(Momo-dev:tip)) with ESMTP id 7E/1A-08130-15834B25; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:30:09 +0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:30:09 +0000 Message-ID: <7E.1A.08130.15834B25@cdptpa-oedge02> From: "Thomas Mueller" To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org References: <307860.67121.bm@smtp112.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <201312190944.rBJ9isTx024731@mech-cluster241.men.bris.ac.uk> <20131219181343.GB47750@glaze.hydra> Subject: Re: If ports@ list continues to be used as substitute for GNATS, I'm unsubscribing X-RR-Connecting-IP: 107.14.168.130:25 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 12:30:16 -0000 > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 01:44:57AM -0800, Anton Shterenlikht wrote: > > > > >From: "Thomas Mueller" > > > > >There are many messages on this thread, and I don't know which or > > >what to quote, but I agree on send-pr being user-unfriendly. > > > I disagree. > > I use only send-pr to send PRs. > > I use sendmail. > I disagree with you. For new users, send-pr is a fucking usability > train wreck, and insufficiently well documented. Sendmail is legendary > for its obtuse configuration. I suppose you should be proud of the fact > you find these tools easy to use, but that does not mean you should > dismiss others' concerns over how difficult some people find them. The > fact many people find these tools very difficult to use is in fact kind > of a big problem, and I'm glad something is being done about it with > regard to the bugzilla system. I wouldn't have chosen bugzilla if it > was up to me, but it's not up to me and it's sure to be a huge > improvement over the system currently in place, so I'm grateful for the > work being done. Hopefully the command line send-pr tool will also be > replaced with something that actually provides a low-friction way for > people with problem reports to contribute to the FreeBSD project. > In conclusion, I agree with Thomas (though I much prefer fdm over mpop, > personally), and believe that send-pr (or its replacement, whenever that > happens) desperately needs some better documentation. I rather suspect > that a lot of people with problems to report simply give up and leave us > with no clue there's anything wrong. -- > Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] I think train wreck applies more to sendmail than send-pr. Sendmail dates back to long-ago pre-Internet days where computer users didn't send email to other computer users. Now a computer user needs to be able to send through ISP's SMTP server. I see in FreeBSD 10-prerelease, certificates in /etc/mail, suspect that might be related to sendmail, but looks useful even to a sendmail nonuser. Otherwise I'd put WITHOUT_SENDMAIL=yes in /etc/src.conf . There needs to be documentation on how to use send-pr for sending through ISP's SMTP server, and computer's hostname should not have to match email address. Nowadays, computer users may have multiple email accounts. When I had OS/2 Warp 4, I sent mail by sendmail -t < outgoing-message-with-all-headers but figuring what to add to sendmail.cf took many hours. Tom