Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 19:03:00 +0100 From: Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> To: Ted Hatfield <ted@io-tx.com>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Eugene Grosbein <eugen@grosbein.net> Cc: Sunpoet Po-Chuan Hsieh <sunpoet@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Procmail got updated! Message-ID: <f68594db-396b-0821-e90d-3f089781e8fd@gmx.de> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.20.1712181824220.10261@io-tx.com> References: <alpine.BSF.2.21.1712181012470.92288@aneurin.horsfall.org> <a3a1097d-22c7-89cc-dd69-b4ceeebf7228@gmx.de> <alpine.BSF.2.20.1712181824220.10261@io-tx.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 19.12.2017 um 01:30 schrieb Ted Hatfield: > > > On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Matthias Andree wrote: > >> Am 18.12.2017 um 00:17 schrieb Dave Horsfall: >>> Doing my regular update, and... >>> >>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Upgrading procmail from 3.22_9 to 3.22_10... >>> >>> Good grief; who's the masochist who volunteered to support this >>> obscure insecure and hitherto-unsupported scripting language? >>> >> https://svnweb.freebsd.org/ports?view=3Drevision&revision=3D455800 >> >> I'd agree we should pull the plug on the package. We'll be in for the >> usual "but it works for me" screaming of the irresponsible people who >> don't care (and most of them won't know that they need to write the >> exception/error handling themselves in their .procmailrc recipes). >> >> Sunpoet, can we mark the port as deprecated given that even the upstre= am >> once said it should best be abolished? I can't find the reference now,= >> the procmail.org website displays "Site hosting in transit, informatio= n >> will be back up shortly." >> > > Dear Matthias, > > As one of the "irresponsible" people who is still using procmail on > our systems and has built an number of scripts and customer > infrastructure around it I take exception to the term irresponsible.=C2= =A0 > Perhaps the better word is overworked.=C2=A0 If I had the time to move = to > dovecot/sieve or maildrop as a local delivery agent I would have done > so by now. > > Ted Hatfield Dear Ted, Eugene, I think if the procmail language were a bit more "regular", someone would have written converter scripts long ago by now. Other than that, I find it hard to believe that people don't have time for over x in [3; 17] years to migrate, which in many cases would in my book be more a situation of "I don't want to..." rather than "I am unable to...". I don't mean to judge your situation, just that to me it looks a matter that you have not yet found it important enough to bother.= Given that the former maintainer asked OpenBSD to pull the plug on the port already 37 months ago (see here <https://marc.info/?l=3Dopenbsd-ports&m=3D141634350915839&w=3D2>) after findings from fuzzing, and now to see security updates to a defunct upstream port, I don't think we should keep the port around for much longer. The expiration I was proposing isn't "axe it out now", we would not normally do that, and it's at the maintainer's (i. e. sunpoet@'s) discretion what expiration date, if any, will be set. But the question if we as downstream packagers/providers want to step in for a package abolished by the upstream almost a generation ago, is one that needs serious consideration. I wouldn't endorse that the project waste time on decrepit ports for which decent alternatives exist. Best, Matthias
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f68594db-396b-0821-e90d-3f089781e8fd>