From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Mon Dec 11 23:49:16 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692ACE80325 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 23:49:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from mail.netplex.net (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.netplex.net", Issuer "RapidSSL SHA256 CA" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2DE0D7FE36 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2017 23:49:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from [10.0.0.64] (ip-414b102e.ct.fixed.ntplx.com [65.75.16.46]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.netplex.net (8.15.1/8.15.1/NETPLEX) with ESMTPSA id vBBNiBE4016179 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:44:11 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.netplex.net) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (mail.netplex.net [204.213.176.9]); Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:44:13 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Subject: Re: RFC: Sendmail deprecation ? From: Daniel Eischen X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (15C114) In-Reply-To: <20171211195938.dxfji2pf2sq63my7@chittenden.org> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 18:44:11 -0500 Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" , freebsd.arch@clogic.com.ua, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <87882E8D-4A55-4F72-A897-7FD0FCD28DDB@freebsd.org> References: <201712111451.vBBEpjIW081611@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> <20171211195938.dxfji2pf2sq63my7@chittenden.org> To: Sean Chittenden X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.25 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 23:49:16 -0000 On Dec 11, 2017, at 2:59 PM, Sean Chittenden wrote: > +1 for deprecating this from base and giving people the choice to `pkg ins= tall > sendmail`. For everyone else deploying large numbers of systems, this is > tedious to rip out and yet-another-thing to explain as a requirement when > operationalizing FreeBSD for production workloads. I do tend to agree with rgrimes, when -base is pkg-ized, folks will have a c= hance to 'pkg install' or 'pkg remove' sendmail or anything else regardless o= f whether it is in -base or -ports. The question should be, where do we wan= t to maintain it? (There's also the history that exists in base that gets d= isconnected when it's in ports.) -base is a set of packages that we deem more important than ports. Does sen= dmail, as it is exists and configured in -base, pass muster for being someth= ing that we consider important enough to warrant being in base? I think thi= s is more of the question to ask than "why can't they install it from ports?= " Consensus seems to indicate no, but that we need some mail delivery agent= . I also think it should be incumbent on whomever removes something from -base= to make a port of it. I don't think we should just throw it over the fence= and expect the ports team to do the work, unless they volunteer for it. -- DE=