From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 34110 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2020 06:05:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 34102 invoked by uid 89); 6 Feb 2020 06:05:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-98.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FORGED_SPF_HELO,KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS,LIKELY_SPAM_BODY,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_NEUTRAL,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=3.3.1 spammy=cgf, offer, services, hear X-HELO: cgf.cx Received: from external.cgf.cx (HELO cgf.cx) (107.170.62.102) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Feb 2020 06:05:50 +0000 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 cgf.cx 53F844000D X-Spam-CGF-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.3 spammy=myself, force, H*r:unknown, H*ct:us-ascii Received: from ednor.cgf.cx (unknown [100.0.105.127]) by cgf.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Thu, 6 Feb 2020 01:05:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by ednor.cgf.cx (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 06 Feb 2020 01:05:47 -0500 Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 06:05:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: Carlos O'Donell Cc: overseers@sourceware.org, Florian Weimer Subject: Re: Choice of distribution for new sourceware.org server? Message-ID: <20200206060547.GA1868@cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: Carlos O'Donell , overseers@sourceware.org, Florian Weimer References: <74e963de-f7c8-33d0-d133-ada427c000a4@redhat.com> <20200206013050.GA16275@cgf.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SW-Source: 2020-q1/txt/msg00064.txt On Wed, Feb 05, 2020 at 08:45:28PM -0500, Carlos O'Donell wrote: >Otherwise dog-fooding Fedora Server would give us the latest packages >for services that sourceware could offer, but we'd have to update once >a year. We talk about that every time we go through a system or OS upgrade. I've maintained a postfix/mailman system in the past so maybe those bits would swap back in. I don't really relish the thought of trying to convert the ezmlm archives to something else but maybe it isn't a big deal. >It would force us to actively track the software we're using and look >at well supported alternatives e.g. postfix + mailman/public inbox vs. >qmail + ezmlm. I use Rawhide on some of my systems and rarely have had a problem but I can hear the screams now. Upgrading to the next version only requires minimal downtime though. So, I'd still be happy to be using it. I assume we can get the same level of input from Red Hat if we have kernel issues. This is the third or fourth time I've moved to a new version of qmail/ezmlm and I never have a good feeling about it since the available rpms always seem a little odd. They have dependencies on things that I don't really understand like "vpopmail". We could roll our own like we did when sourceware was new but that means being diligent about security issues. I think I've just convinced myself to look into using postfix and mailman. I'll try to do that in the next few days. cgf