Re: [ITP] Sendmail 8.14.9

["D. Boland" <daniel@boland.nl>]

Hi Yaakov,

Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> 
> On 2014-08-22 13:19, D. Boland wrote:
> >> On Aug 22 07:43, D. Boland wrote:
> >>> I re-packaged Sendmail with cygport. See:
> >>>
> >>> http://cygwin.boland.nl/x86/release/sendmail/
> >>
> >> Packaging looks good in theory.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately we have a problem.
> >>
> >> On inspection of your binary package I noticed that we have conflicts
> >> with exim and ssmtp packages:
> [snip]
> >> What we'll have to do to fix this problem is to convert all three
> >> packages to use alternatives.  The alternatives package exists and is
> >> already used by a couple of other packages which would otherwise
> >> conflict, so there's precendent.  And on Fedora, the various mail
> >> packages all use alternatives, too, to install their packages in
> >> parallel and conflict-free.
> [snip]
> >
> > You already guessed it. I don't like it. It's getting very messy this way.
> 
> Not doing this properly will be even more messy, I assure you.
> 
> > I'm sorry for the following rant,
> [snip]
> 
> Rants and flamewars really aren't helpful.  The FOSS ecosystem not only
> allows for the possibility of alternative solutions, but thrives on it.
>   So while we probably agree that sendmail is the "first" and in some
> ways a de-facto standard (at least in terms of program names and paths),
> and is certainly worthy of consideration for our distribution, it does
> not negate the legitimacy of exim/postfix/ssmtp/etc.
> 
> > Ok, that being out of the way: I am running out of time,  and I still have to do the
> > 64bit version.
> 
> Running out of time for what?  Keep in mind that being a package
> maintainer is more than just shipping a release and forgetting about it;
> given the nature of this package in particular, there are certainly
> going to be issues that come up from users.  Dealing with this is part
> of the commitment of being a package maintainer.
> 
> That being said, the more time we spend upfront doing this right should
> help mitigate even worse problems down the road should we not.
> 
> Also, the 32-bit and 64-bit versions should be done together,
> particularly as we're going to have to rebuild other packages to make
> these all coexist.  Therefore, it would be helpful if you could start
> working on the 64-bit ports in the meantime.
> 

Thanks for letting me have my rant. I put in my time and I will continue to do so. I
think Sendmail, and for that matter, Redhat are worth it. You guys were the original
believers in open source software, putting your own time and resources on the line.
I still have an original 6.1 version running for 14 years now. Never crashed, never
had problems.

> > I've read the 'alternatives' documentation and it looks nasty: link
> > groups, master link, slave link, automatic mode, manual mode...
> 
> alternatives really isn't that hard to understand, and we'll help
> coordinate a working configuration for all the potentially conflicting MTAs.
> 
> > Why not let the user choose one program? Putting both Exim and Sendmail on one box
> > is confusing, to say the least. Sendmail is very tough to understand. You don't want
> > another (very similar looking) mail exchanger to add to the confusion.
> 
> Cygwin's setup*.exe does not support the concept of "conflicts" (one
> package blocking others from being installed), nor does it prevent file
> clobbering if multiple packages provide the same file.  Since there is
> no way to stop multiple MTAs from being installed, it is necessary to
> insure that they do so properly.
> 
> Besides, at least in Fedora, it is possible to install multiple MTAs
> without conflicts.
> 
> > You really put me on the spot here. Will Sendmail suffer? Will it dream?
> 
> This needs to be handled properly, that's all, and that can take time.
> If Pierre doesn't respond soon, we can step in to help with exim.
> 

So I will not be left alone with this. That's a relief. I'll wait with the
uploading. In the mean time I'll update the Procmail and Sendmail code to use the
new 'fakesu' lib. 

About the 64bit version: Are there any things I have to be careful of? Like
crosscompiling? Or is it a matter of just straight forward compiling on a 64bit
Cygwin machine? 

Daniel