DMA -- difference between base and port?

[Ronald Klop]

Some questions below.

On Tue, 22 Dec 2020 01:56:04 +0100, Dan Mahoney (Gushi)  
<freebsd at gushi.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Dec 2020, Ronald Klop wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 12:12:02 +0100, Dan Mahoney (Gushi)  
>> <freebsd at gushi.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey there,
>>>  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.


Why are you calling newaliases if dma does not use an aliases db?


>>>  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?
>>>  -Dan
>>>
>>
>> On 13-CURRENT I have:
>> # more /usr/src/contrib/dma/VERSION
>> v0.11
>>
>> But the version nr doesn't tell the whole story. There are some code  
>> syncs after 0.11.
>> https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd/commits/master/contrib/dma
>>
>> There is a PR to upgrade base to 0.13 already.
>> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=244630
>>
>> Would love to see a sync with even newer code. I made a fix upstream  
>> myself.
>
> Yes, my issue with "newaliases" failing actually comes down to two open  
> issues:
>
> 1) No released version will work with "newaliases" unless "newaliases"  
> is called as a bareword (so calling /usr/bin/newaliases, as puppet does,  
> causes you to get a "no recipients" error)  This is fixed in dma head,  
> but not in either the current port version, or the freebsd base version.
>


I'm a bit confused. You say "this is fixed in dma head". I see no matching  
commit about this fix after 0.13 release in  
https://github.com/corecode/dma/commits/master .


> We've tweaked it by telling our deploy tools (puppet) to call newaliases  
> and handing it a path, but we prefer to hand exec's full paths to  
> binaries.
>
> 2) DMA's still broken if you've got an alternate alias file defined, see  
> https://github.com/corecode/dma/issues/90
>
> (Given, this is the ports mailing list, but those should also be fixed  
> in the ports version, with the latter perhaps being fixed one dma hits  
> 0.14 or whatever version number has that fix, rather than manually  
> patching 0.13.)
>
> -Dan
>


If I read it correctly I have the idea that your issue is in FreeBSD base,  
ports and the dma github code?
So it seems it needs to be solved upstream first.

I'm asking this, because I would like to have the 0.13 update in base and  
make sure that your issue is not a showstopper for this but a separate  
issue independend of the version of contrib/dma.

Regards,
Ronald.