Sendmail deprecation ?

[Baptiste Daroussin]

On Thu, Dec 07, 2017 at 07:32:37AM -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > In message <201712070251.vB72p58k054508 at slippy.cwsent.com>, Cy Schubert 
> > writes:
> > > In message <B16088FF-FDE1-4EDF-AB76-D60C2E5F3E8F at panasas.com>, "Pokala, 
> > > Ravi" w
> > > rites:
> > > > So less "no dma(8)", and more "no default MTA at all; make them select one"
> > > ?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > 
> > Thinking about this further and softening my position a little, I'd be 
> > satisfied with a knob to not build dma in base at all. (Though the desire 
> > to remove bloat I prefer not to replace when something is removed.)
> > 
> > Upline sendmail hasn't been updated for a a year and almost eight months. 
> > (I had misgivings of the sale.) Having said that, I think sendmail's time 
> > has come however I'm not convinced replacing it with another default MTA is 
> > the solution. A stub like pkg that could install a package, providing the 
> > user with a list to choose from, possibly timing out after a short period 
> > of time to install the dma pkg (or port) makes the most sense to me and 
> > should be a good compromise for all.
> > 
> > As gjb@ has been working toward packaged base, would it not be a good time 
> > for the MTA replacement project to consider relying on dma ports/packages?
> > 
> > Ports/packages are just as much FreeBSD as base is.
> 
> Why do we not just wait for pkg base?   
> 
> These silly threads on "axe this" are just waisting time that should be
> spent on getting pkg base done and then these issues become pretty much
> a /dev/null.
> 

First this is totally unrelated.

Second pkg base is very far from being ready, lots of work is needed to get it
ready for users, and this thread is not taking time at all from the time spent
on getting pkg base. Have you noticed the sender of this request is also one who
have spent a lot of time in packaging base?

I can tell you these issues won't become pretty much a /dev/null once packaging
base is there. In particular in the case of sendmail, it can btw actually save
time on packaging base, but that is another story...

It would be nice to not call others work silly, you are the first to ask for
people to actually follow a deprecation procedure and when they do you call it
"silly"?

Bapt
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/attachments/20171207/451fa41c/attachment.sig>