Mark Martinec:
> Sahil Tandon wrote:
> > I do not believe Mark should have to jump through extra hoops, or that
> > you should revert the change. This is a FreeBSD port-specific problem
> > created by me that I will address as soon as I can.
>
> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Considering the short time left before the next stable release I
> > am considering the following schedule:
> > - Revert to Postfix 2.8 behavior, and complete the 2.9 release cycle.
> > - In the 2.10 development cycle, make Postfix build on hosts that
> > have no network interfaces. That would eliminate problems like
> > Mark's hosts without IPv4, FreeBSD "port" builds on hosts with
> > dysfunctional IPv6, and other weird environments.
> > - In the 2.10 development cycle, (re)start the first phase of the
> > IPv6-on-by-default transition, and do this early enough that there
> > is time to make sure that all maintainers are on board.
>
> That would be sad news, considering how long it takes for
> "distributions" to jump on each new major version.
This problem has an excellent solution. Change the built-in default
now for long-term future compatibility, and edit main.cf at install
time now for short-term historical compatibility.
> As long as main.cf gets adjusted if necessary during install
> to maintain backward compatibility, the builtin default does not
> matter, as long as the package can be build and installed.
The built-in default matters big time for the majority of sites that
use Postfix on IPv4-only networks. They will see an unexpected drop
in performance as Postfix makes useless AAAA DNS lookups and useless
IPv6 connection attempts. This is why I must require that both parts
of the above solution are implemented, or none at all.
There is not much time left for me to work on the 2.9 stable release,
and I don't want to be distracted by open problems with ports
maintainers.
Wietse
