RFC: Sendmail deprecation ?

[Daniel Eischen]

> On Dec 11, 2017, at 7:11 PM, Conrad Meyer <cem at freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:44 PM, Daniel Eischen <deischen at freebsd.org> wrote:
>> 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 regardless of whether it is in -base or -ports.
> 
> 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 ;-))?.  They can't pkg remove it.  And when upgrading from media again, it gets reinstalled?  When base is pkg-ized, once it's pkg removed it is never reinstalled when upgrading.  It is also easier to turn off the installation defaults with pkg base, so that some software is never installed by default.  Sure, when building and installing world it, you have the WITHOUT knobs, but that doesn't help other common installation methods.

>> The question should be, where do we want to maintain it?  (There's also the history that exists in base that gets disconnected when it's in ports.)
>> 
>> -base is a set of packages that we deem more important than ports.  Does sendmail, as it is exists and configured in -base, pass muster for being something that we consider important enough to warrant being in base?  I think this is more of the question to ask than "why can't they install it from ports?"  Consensus seems to indicate no, but that we need some mail delivery agent.
>> 
>> I also think it should be incumbent on whomever removes something from -base to make a port of it.
> 
> 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.)
> 
>> 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.
> 
> mail/sendmail has been available as a port since 2000.

But that port reportedly doesn't have the FreeBSD configuration files that we have in base.  You'd be pushing the burden of maintaining them onto the ports maintainer, making sure they work on all supported branches; they may not want that responsibility.

--
DE