Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:11:22 -0400 From: Wesley Shields <wxs@FreeBSD.org> To: Yarema <yds@CoolRat.org> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Dovecot Sieve port switched from CMU Sieve to Dovecot Message-ID: <20090829181122.GA22669@atarininja.org> In-Reply-To: <4A982DC9.7050608@CoolRat.org> References: <20090827131800.191378ee@gumby.homeunix.com> <4A96C6BE.709@CoolRat.org> <20090828133918.GD258@atarininja.org> <4A980E8F.8000403@CoolRat.org> <20090828183110.GA7175@atarininja.org> <4A982DC9.7050608@CoolRat.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 03:19:37PM -0400, Yarema wrote: > Wesley Shields wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 01:06:23PM -0400, Yarema wrote: > >> Wesley Shields wrote: > >>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 01:47:42PM -0400, Yarema wrote: > >>>> RW wrote: > >>>>> When I upgraded my ports yesterday Dovecot deliver stopped working. It > >>>>> appears that not only has the sieve plugin been upgraded, but it's > >>>>> switched from the CMU version to Dovecot's own implementation. > >>>>> > >>>>> This should be documented in UPDATING - it's not covered by the > >>>>> previous Dovecot note. > >>>>> > >>>>> http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Sieve/Dovecot#Migration_from_CMUSieve > >>>> Yes, I made a note regarding this in the PR to update mail/dovecot-sieve: > >>>> > >>>> http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=137935 > >>>> > >>>> Also, Wesley added a note to UPDATING when he committed the update to > >>>> dovecot-1.2.3 on 20090815. Maybe we need another note specific to the > >>>> dovecot-sieve port and a link to its own docs: > >>>> > >>>> http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Sieve/Dovecot#Migration_from_CMUSieve > >>>> > >>> I'm now back from traveling for $JOB so if someone wants to provide me > >>> with text for UPDATING I will be happy to commit it. > >>> > >>> -- WXS > >> Wesley, > >> > >> Something along the lines of the note you used for the dovecot port: > >> > >> AFFECTS: users of mail/dovecot and mail/dovecot-sieve > >> > >> dovecot-sieve has been updated to a new implementation compatible with > >> dovecot 1.2.x. For details of what this means please see: > >> http://wiki.dovecot.org/LDA/Sieve/Dovecot#Migration_from_CMUSieve > > > > I've just committed this text. My apologies on not getting it in with > > the PR but it was unclear to me (as I don't use the sieve port) that > > this was necessary. > > > > In the future, please point these things out very clearly in the PR. If > > you did that and I missed it then I apologize - maybe I should get new > > glasses? :) > > > >> P.S. Wesley, many thanks for always grabbing the dovecot* PRs and > >> getting them in. > > > > Your welcome! Thank you for your continued hard work on these ports. > > Wesley, > > While this is still fresh, the note you added to mail/dovecot/Makefile > is accurate: > > # Please be careful when updating this port as changes to this port # > # can break mail/dovecot-sieve and mail/dovecot-managesieve. In # > # order to ensure the least amount of breakage possible please # > # consult the maintainer of those ports before updating this one. # > > However this sort of breakage happens when jumping from 1.0 -> 1.1 or > 1.1 -> 1.2 and this doesn't happen often. It's unlikely we'll need to > heed this warning until dovecot 2.0 comes out. What I see happening far > more often is folks filing PRs without enabling ManageSieve in the main > dovecot port. Then the PR ends up not including the distinfo for the > ManageSieve patch. I don't think there is a nice way to fix this besides you, who knows this best, that incoming PRs are looked at closely. > I was previously overruled by a committer when I filed a PR to default > ManageSieve to ON. IIRC, POLA was sited as the reason. I'm still of > the opinion that the ManageSieve patch to the main dovecot port should > default to ON for the following reasons: > > - with the ManageSieve patch built into the package it becomes possible > for users of binary packages to just install the dovecot-sieve and > dovecot-managesieve ports and have them work. As it stands now anyone > who wants to use ManageSieve has to build the dovecot port from source. > So it doesn't even make sense to have a binary package of > dovecot-managesieve unless the ManageSieve patch is built into the > dovecot package by default as well. > > - the ManageSieve patch does not add much bulk to the package. Those > who do not use ManageSieve can simply ignore it or if they build from > source can disable it. Either way from the perspective of those who do > not use ManageSieve nothing really changes (thus POLA is not violated). > > - and finally there would be fewer broken PRs filed without the distinfo > for the ManageSieve patch included. > > In my opinion it seems not having the binary dovecot-managesieve package > "just work" is more of a POLA violation than having an extra > README.managesieve and related dovecot.conf sections installed by > default in the main dovecot port. I have no problems marking that option as on by default since it will mean that the managesieve port can be usefully packaged, while not bloating the port at all. If the discussion you had with a committer previously happened in a public place can you please share a PR number or link to the mail archives where I can read the thread? If the dovecot port continues to have this option off by default then the managesieve port should be marked as NO_PACKAGE since, like you said, the package is worthless. -- WXS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090829181122.GA22669>