Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
On 2014-02-25 17:43, Bruce Dubbs wrote: That said, I don't have strong opinions about whether it is in the book or not. We may want to review it in a few days as we sort out other areas. I don't want sendmail back in the book as I believe it's rated worse in performance and security not to mention ease of configuration. -- Igor Živković http://www.slashtime.net/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:47:05 +0100 From: Igor ??ivkovi?? cont...@igor-zivkovic.from.hr To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail On 2014-02-26 13:45, Igor ??ivkovi?? wrote: On 2014-02-25 17:43, Bruce Dubbs wrote: That said, I don't have strong opinions about whether it is in the book or not. We may want to review it in a few days as we sort out other areas. I don't want sendmail back in the book as I believe it's rated worse in performance and security not to mention ease of configuration. You _'believe'_: references, for both/each of the perf/sec counts? As for the build/config: ref readily-avail build-specs from other distros - e.g. Slackware. Removal of packages should be done in a considered manner: some of the recent stuff looks like folks _STAMPING_OUT_ things that they happen to not like, or have some 'bee in the head' about, or is beyond their ken, or they _just_can't_be_bothered_about_(TM), usw. rgds, akhiezer I mean compared to postfix and exim. -- Igor ??ivkovi?? http://www.slashtime.net/ -- -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 15:38:59 +0100 From: Igor ??ivkovi?? cont...@igor-zivkovic.from.hr To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail On 2014-02-26 15:24, lf...@cruziero.com wrote: Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 13:47:05 +0100 From: Igor ??ivkovi?? cont...@igor-zivkovic.from.hr To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail On 2014-02-26 13:45, Igor ??ivkovi?? wrote: On 2014-02-25 17:43, Bruce Dubbs wrote: That said, I don't have strong opinions about whether it is in the book or not. We may want to review it in a few days as we sort out other areas. I don't want sendmail back in the book as I believe it's rated worse in performance and security not to mention ease of configuration. You _'believe'_: references, for both/each of the perf/sec counts? Both. And as asked clearly: the references are ... , what, where? As for the build/config: ref readily-avail build-specs from other distros - e.g. Slackware. Removal of packages should be done in a considered manner: some of the recent stuff looks like folks _STAMPING_OUT_ things that they happen to not like, or have some 'bee in the head' about, or is beyond their ken, or they _just_can't_be_bothered_about_(TM), usw. Sendmail was considered as not worth the effort. But patches are welcome, as always. Not even the fairly simple effort of seeing what other distros do - as is done for much in b/lfs? Any other packages - e.g. TeXLive, LibreOffice, ... - you'd classify similarly? Patches: effectively yes, look at the Slackware build. If you instead want direct patches to the blfs book xml, then you need to realise that folks will look at how previous work is treated, while deciding if they want theirs to run the risk of the same. rgds, akh -- Igor ??ivkovi?? http://www.slashtime.net/ -- -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
On 2014-02-26 15:53, lf...@cruziero.com wrote: And as asked clearly: the references are ... , what, where? Go to your favorite search engine, type sendmail vs postfix vs exim, and enjoy the read. Not even the fairly simple effort of seeing what other distros do - as is done for much in b/lfs? Nope. Any other packages - e.g. TeXLive, LibreOffice, ... - you'd classify similarly? I'd dump texlive, but libreoffice is useful to me. Patches: effectively yes, look at the Slackware build. If you instead want direct patches to the blfs book xml, then you need to realise that folks will look at how previous work is treated, while deciding if they want theirs to run the risk of the same. Fair enough. -- Igor Živković http://www.slashtime.net/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
On 26/02/2014 17:00, Igor Živković wrote: On 2014-02-26 15:53, lf...@cruziero.com wrote: And as asked clearly: the references are ... , what, where? Go to your favorite search engine, type sendmail vs postfix vs exim, and enjoy the read. There is ton's of FUD regarding sendmail previous releases allowed simple overflow cracks the default was open relay much of this is pre 2000 i still use / support / supply sendmail its not for the average user and has many quirks for a cluster using LDAP it IMHO comes into its own. sure for SOHO use simple config is better. there always 2 sides to a coin. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:00:19 +0100 From: Igor ??ivkovi?? cont...@igor-zivkovic.from.hr To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail On 2014-02-26 15:53, lf...@cruziero.com wrote: And as asked clearly: the references are ... , what, where? Go to your favorite search engine, type sendmail vs postfix vs exim, and enjoy the read. Hang on: you indicated that you were basing your decision - and fairly explicit recommendation to others, and actions taken that affect others - in substantial part on a 'belief'. Is that belief based on reliable properly-done studies that you can give references for? Or are you just going by vague notions accrued from the internet? Or what? Not even the fairly simple effort of seeing what other distros do - as is done for much in b/lfs? Nope. Then why did _you_ remove it in the way that you did, instead of going back to list. Under what circumstances do you check what other distros are doing, for package build/bug/config/c matters? If e.g. gcc or glibc doesn't build/cfg for you according to its own instructions, then do you dump it, or check around to see how to build/cfg it, or what? Is the central criterion here, just what _you_ personally can be bothered with? Any other packages - e.g. TeXLive, LibreOffice, ... - you'd classify similarly? I'd dump texlive, but libreoffice is useful to me. Just to check: if something is deemed by you to be presently not useful to you, then do you 'dump' it from just your own builds, or would you want to remove it from the central blfs-book altogether, for everyone else? Patches: effectively yes, look at the Slackware build. If you instead want direct patches to the blfs book xml, then you need to realise that folks will look at how previous work is treated, while deciding if they want theirs to run the risk of the same. Fair enough. -- Igor ??ivkovi?? http://www.slashtime.net/ -- -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:08:38 +0200 From: Gregory H. Nietsky gregniet...@gmail.com To: blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail On 26/02/2014 17:00, Igor ??ivkovi?? wrote: On 2014-02-26 15:53, lf...@cruziero.com wrote: And as asked clearly: the references are ... , what, where? Go to your favorite search engine, type sendmail vs postfix vs exim, and enjoy the read. There is ton's of FUD regarding sendmail previous releases allowed simple overflow cracks the default was open relay much of this is pre 2000 i still use / Yes, indeed; and often poor sysadmin practices for the machine as a whole (ref e.g. of course 'DontBlameSendmail'). All that of course is common knowledge. That's why I was interested in Igor's claims: was it just regurgitation, or based on new well-based studies, or what? support / supply sendmail its not for the average user and has many quirks for a cluster using LDAP it IMHO comes into its own. sure for SOHO use simple config is better. there always 2 sides to a coin. The level of cfg for SOHO scenario, is pretty straightforward for sendmail too. FOLKS: sendmail is _easy_, and has been for _years_. rgds, akh -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
On 2014-02-26 16:28, lf...@cruziero.com wrote: Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:00:19 +0100 From: Igor ??ivkovi?? cont...@igor-zivkovic.from.hr To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail On 2014-02-26 15:53, lf...@cruziero.com wrote: And as asked clearly: the references are ... , what, where? Go to your favorite search engine, type sendmail vs postfix vs exim, and enjoy the read. Hang on: you indicated that you were basing your decision - and fairly explicit recommendation to others, and actions taken that affect others - in substantial part on a 'belief'. Is that belief based on reliable properly-done studies that you can give references for? Or are you just going by vague notions accrued from the internet? Or what? Would you care to find reliable and properly done studies which show that sendmail is in any way superior to either postfix or exim? Besides wasting our time on useless discussion, you can't even be bothered to send a patch to fix current instructions which nobody verified to actually work for past couple of BLFS releases. Get real. Is the central criterion here, just what _you_ personally can be bothered with? I bothered enough with it to remove it from the book. If someone else cares to fix it, it will probably be back in the book. I personally don't see the value in having it in the book but I'm not the only editor and/or BLFS user. It's that simple. Where is the problem, exactly? Any other packages - e.g. TeXLive, LibreOffice, ... - you'd classify similarly? I'd dump texlive, but libreoffice is useful to me. Just to check: if something is deemed by you to be presently not useful to you, then do you 'dump' it from just your own builds, or would you want to remove it from the central blfs-book altogether, for everyone else? Which part of *I'd dump xxx* you didn't understand? -- Igor Živković http://www.slashtime.net/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:58:22 +0100 From: Igor ??ivkovi?? cont...@igor-zivkovic.from.hr To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail On 2014-02-26 16:28, lf...@cruziero.com wrote: Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:00:19 +0100 From: Igor ??ivkovi?? cont...@igor-zivkovic.from.hr To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail On 2014-02-26 15:53, lf...@cruziero.com wrote: And as asked clearly: the references are ... , what, where? Go to your favorite search engine, type sendmail vs postfix vs exim, and enjoy the read. Hang on: you indicated that you were basing your decision - and fairly explicit recommendation to others, and actions taken that affect others - in substantial part on a 'belief'. Is that belief based on reliable properly-done studies that you can give references for? Or are you just going by vague notions accrued from the internet? Or what? Would you care to find reliable and properly done studies which show that sendmail is in any way superior to either postfix or exim? Besides Yes, as I suspected: you're bs'ing. You made the claim and you cannot or will not back it up. Period. And to try to hide that, you try the old transparent attempted tactic to put the onus on the other. You made the claim: where's the evidence; do you stand by it, or revert it, or water it down, or what? wasting our time on useless discussion, you can't even be bothered to send a patch to fix current instructions which nobody verified to actually work for past couple of BLFS releases. Get real. Why would anyone put their work - at least directly - under the auspices of attitudes as exhibited. And spare us the attempted 'pulling rank' re book contribs: 'doing things' != 'doing good work' . Is the central criterion here, just what _you_ personally can be bothered with? I bothered enough with it to remove it from the book. If someone else cares to fix it, it will probably be back in the book. I personally don't see the value in having it in the book but I'm not the only editor and/or BLFS user. It's that simple. Where is the problem, exactly? Any other packages - e.g. TeXLive, LibreOffice, ... - you'd classify similarly? I'd dump texlive, but libreoffice is useful to me. Just to check: if something is deemed by you to be presently not useful to you, then do you 'dump' it from just your own builds, or would you want to remove it from the central blfs-book altogether, for everyone else? Which part of *I'd dump xxx* you didn't understand? And again, you try to point folks away from simple clarificatory questions that may be awkward to you. Sounds like maybe you'd rip out everything from the central blfs book that you personally can't be bothered with. rgds, akhiezer -- Igor ??ivkovi?? http://www.slashtime.net/ -- -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:58:22 +0100 From: Igor ??ivkovi?? cont...@igor-zivkovic.from.hr To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail . . I bothered enough with it to remove it from the book. If someone else But you didn't bother to go back to list - or indeed the proper -dev list: you just instead lopped it off, with some alacrity. cares to fix it, it will probably be back in the book. I personally don't see the value in having it in the book but I'm not the only editor and/or BLFS user. It's that simple. Where is the problem, exactly? Nice to see some acknowl that you're not the only editor/user: the acting as if that's not the case, has been _precisely_ the central issue; d'you not understand that - Where is the problem, exactly?, indeed; why d'you even need to ask that - or are you just trying to be rhetorical to again try to divert attention from the central, _obvious_ issue. rgds, akh -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
On 2014-02-26 17:20, lf...@cruziero.com wrote: Yes, as I suspected: you're bs'ing. That's funny because mostly everything I have ever seen from you (and I don't even know your real name) around here is bullshit, flaming incitement and rudeness. Anyways, I'm dumping you just like sendmail. Have a good day. -- Igor Živković http://www.slashtime.net/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:29:32 +0100 From: Igor ??ivkovi?? cont...@igor-zivkovic.from.hr To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail On 2014-02-26 17:20, lf...@cruziero.com wrote: Yes, as I suspected: you're bs'ing. That's funny because mostly everything I have ever seen from you (and I don't even know your real name) around here is bullshit, flaming incitement and rudeness. Anyways, I'm dumping you just like sendmail. Have a good day. Yes, you acted and spoke as you have on this matter, in the earlier stages, and then when queried - because folks want to know and undertsand why you're saying/acting as you have done (e.g. _are_ there some new-ish studies that _do_ show relative measures concerning mail servers - info that people _are_ genuinely interested in) - then you get annoyed ccc. Nonsense worse. rgds, akh -- Igor ??ivkovi?? http://www.slashtime.net/ -- -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
Igor Živković wrote: On 2014-02-25 17:43, Bruce Dubbs wrote: That said, I don't have strong opinions about whether it is in the book or not. We may want to review it in a few days as we sort out other areas. I don't want sendmail back in the book as I believe it's rated worse in performance and security not to mention ease of configuration. You don't need to do sendmail, but I think the user should have the choice. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
Igor Živković wrote: On 2014-02-26 17:20, lf...@cruziero.com wrote: Yes, as I suspected: you're bs'ing. That's funny because mostly everything I have ever seen from you (and I don't even know your real name) around here is bullshit, flaming incitement and rudeness. Anyways, I'm dumping you just like sendmail. Have a good day. Settle down guys. No need for personal attacks. We have a difference of opinion and that is fine. Don't raise the level of rhetoric to levels not needed to discuss the issue. It is reasonable to discuss whether a package should be in the book or not. There are several I personally don't care for, but others find them useful so they stay. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:26:19 +0100 From: Pierre Labastie pierre.labas...@neuf.fr To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail Hi, Recently, sendmail has been archived, (see ticket #4723). There has not been a real discussion about that. The reason is that the current building instructions do not lead to a functional package, although Armin and Igor have tried to do so. Furthermore, there are alternatives (exim4 and postfix), which are deemed better than sendmail anyway. OTOH, I suppose that folks monitoring this list not all follow BLFS trac, and it may be interesting to hear what they have to say. That is the purpose of this thread. Yes, I was about to post here on that. Wouldn't normally such a discussion take place on -dev and only after that would any -book actions happen - per the notes: Ref: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/mail.html -- blfs-book The blfs-book list is used for coordinating the BLFS Book's maintenance. Traffic on it is mostly Trac and SVN commit messages. It is important that all development discussion of interest to the Book's users take place on blfs-dev, not here. The trac item is: http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/4723 That's a _very_ summary-'removal' of sendmail; and doesn't reflect well on b/lfs. Since its build system requires IQ over 9000 to understand, I won't bother to try to fix it. (ibid). There are plenty of distros that build and use sendmail perfectly well. Very often b/lfs will avail itself of such instructions from other distros, for all sorts of packages, and to a very wide range of degrees of complexity. Yet in this case the package is dropped like a hot potato(/coal). What was (really) going on there, in that trac ticket? Also, the tone of The current situation is terrible and is not copy/paste friendly at all. See Xorg, Qt, KDE instructions for more information. (re libreoffice: ref 'http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/4725'), together with the above sendmail stuff, sounds more like someone is in a rather irascible mood? rgds, akhiezer Pierre -- -- -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
On 25/02/2014 13:39, akhiezer wrote:
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:26:19 +0100
From: Pierre Labastie pierre.labas...@neuf.fr
To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
Hi,
Recently, sendmail has been archived, (see ticket #4723). There has not
been a real discussion about that. The reason is that the current
building instructions do not lead to a functional package, although
Armin and Igor have tried to do so. Furthermore, there are alternatives
(exim4 and postfix), which are deemed better than sendmail anyway. OTOH,
I suppose that folks monitoring this list not all follow BLFS trac, and
it may be interesting to hear what they have to say. That is the purpose
of this thread.
Yes, I was about to post here on that.
Wouldn't normally such a discussion take place on -dev and only after that
would any -book actions happen - per the notes:
Ref: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/mail.html
--
blfs-book
The blfs-book list is used for coordinating the BLFS Book's
maintenance. Traffic on it is mostly Trac and SVN commit messages. It
is important that all development discussion of interest to the Book's
users take place on blfs-dev, not here.
The trac item is:
http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/4723
That's a _very_ summary-'removal' of sendmail; and doesn't reflect well
on b/lfs.
Since its build system requires IQ over 9000 to understand, I won't
bother to try to fix it. (ibid). There are plenty of distros that build
and use sendmail perfectly well. Very often b/lfs will avail itself of
such instructions from other distros, for all sorts of packages, and to
a very wide range of degrees of complexity. Yet in this case the package
is dropped like a hot potato(/coal).
What was (really) going on there, in that trac ticket?
Also, the tone of The current situation is terrible and is not copy/paste
friendly at all. See Xorg, Qt, KDE instructions for more information. (re
libreoffice: ref 'http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/4725'),
together with the above sendmail stuff, sounds more like someone is in a
rather irascible mood?
I still use sendmail i find it exceptionally easy to build and install i
have simple build
script i use and a perl config system that i could split up and push to
blfs problem is
that its almost 100% ldap based. exim and postfix are understandably
firm favorites and are more straight forward.
been a old school sendmail user going back to late 90's even had a copy
of the bat book
the configuration is almost 100% ldap with a web interface used to
manage. then i also
use ldap as a passwd backend with ldap_nss/ldap_pam and that tied into
samba3 for full
email/file/print stack.
for educational purposes you learn more from sendmail indeed.and for a
simple LSB required
mailer that accepts mail from 127.0.0.1 and or sendmail binary and
forward it on it is just what you need.
the configuration of sendmail beyond a simple use case will be at the
builders discretion the build can be covered in a simple
script or even a copy paste devtools/Site/site.config.m4 will be fine
adding the options bellow is likely overkill already and suited
to more ISP than SOHO build.
--
here is my bits it builds in the build-${ARCH} [x86_64] using the
${HOST} toolchain [x86_64-linux-gnu]-{gcc,ld} puts the
build in the staging direcory DIST_ROOT. the build supports
SASL/LDAP/TLS/SSL/IPV6
the env var B_LIBDIRS is the arch's libdir ie lib/libx32/lib64 as i
build for various builds/arch [this is more in CLFS] rmail and
mail.local are redundant but i do include them but never use them use
dovecot/procmail instead of mail.local.
./build_sendmail ${ARCH} ${HOST} ${DIST_ROOT} this is run in the source dir
#!/bin/bash
CWD=$( pwd )
(/usr/bin/cat EOF
APPENDDEF(\`confMAPDEF', \`-DLDAPMAP')
APPENDDEF(\`confENVDEF', \`-DLDAP_VERSION_MAX=3 -DSASL -DSTARTTLS
-D_FFR_SASL_OPTS -DNETINET6')dnl
APPENDDEF(\`confINCDIRS', \`-I/usr/include/sasl')dnl
APPENDDEF(\`confLIBDIRS', \`-L=/usr/${B_LIBDIRS}/sasl2')dnl
APPENDDEF(\`confLIBS', \`-L=/usr/${B_LIBDIRS} -lldap -lsasl2 -lcrypt
-lssl -lcrypto -llber -lpthread -lrt -lltdl -lutil')dnl
PREPENDDEF(\`confLIBSEARCH',\`resolv')dnl
define(\`confCC', \`/usr/bin/${2}-gcc')dnl
define(\`confCCOPTS', \`--sysroot=/build/${1}')dnl
define(\`confMKDIR', \`mkdir')dnl
define(\`confMANROOT', \`/usr/share/man/man')dnl
define(\`confCCLINK', \`/usr/bin/${2}-gcc')dnl
EOF
) devtools/Site/site.config.m4
for mandir in 1 3 4 5 8;do
/usr/bin/mkdir -p ${3}/usr/share/man/man${mandir}
done;
for bindir in bin sbin;do
/usr/bin/mkdir -p ${3}/usr/${bindir}
done;
./Build -O ${CWD}/build-${1} DESTDIR=${3} all install
for noinst in build-${1}/*/rmail build-${1}/*/mail.local;do
/usr/bin/make -C ${noinst} DESTDIR=${3} force-install
done
/usr/bin/rsync -avP cf/ ${3}/usr/share/mailconf
--
Greg
--
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
On 02/25/2014 12:39 PM, akhiezer wrote: Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 11:26:19 +0100 From: Pierre Labastie pierre.labas...@neuf.fr To: BLFS Development List blfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org Subject: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail Hi, Recently, sendmail has been archived, (see ticket #4723). There has not been a real discussion about that. The reason is that the current building instructions do not lead to a functional package, although Armin and Igor have tried to do so. Furthermore, there are alternatives (exim4 and postfix), which are deemed better than sendmail anyway. OTOH, I suppose that folks monitoring this list not all follow BLFS trac, and it may be interesting to hear what they have to say. That is the purpose of this thread. Yes, I was about to post here on that. Wouldn't normally such a discussion take place on -dev and only after that would any -book actions happen - per the notes: Ref: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/mail.html -- blfs-book The blfs-book list is used for coordinating the BLFS Book's maintenance. Traffic on it is mostly Trac and SVN commit messages. It is important that all development discussion of interest to the Book's users take place on blfs-dev, not here. The trac item is: http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/4723 That's a _very_ summary-'removal' of sendmail; and doesn't reflect well on b/lfs. Since its build system requires IQ over 9000 to understand, I won't bother to try to fix it. (ibid). There are plenty of distros that build and use sendmail perfectly well. Very often b/lfs will avail itself of such instructions from other distros, for all sorts of packages, and to a very wide range of degrees of complexity. Yet in this case the package is dropped like a hot potato(/coal). I've advised that it either should be fixed or dropped if nobody cares about it. Current configuration (build went fine, maybe I missed that - but the build system is still like nothing I've seen before) options do not work, as it is pasted in the ticket. The package was lfs74_built; so it was just indeed build tested only for previous release(s) and from the look of that, seems that its instructions went a bit obsolete. What was (really) going on there, in that trac ticket? Also, the tone of The current situation is terrible and is not copy/paste friendly at all. See Xorg, Qt, KDE instructions for more information. (re libreoffice: ref 'http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/ticket/4725'), together with the above sendmail stuff, sounds more like someone is in a rather irascible mood? If you look at libreoffice page, you can notice that it uses PREFIX in its instructions. That's insanely hard to script (you need to use sed and all that stuff when you copy/paste it), you can't simply copy paste it to the console (need to change PREFIX to the desired prefix). My advice was that it either uses hardcoded prefix like /usr or /opt/libreoffice or that it uses environment variables for prefix like in Xorg, KDE, Qt instructions. I apologize if I meant something bad by that, it was never my intention but to make instructions work good and work for everyone. -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
Pierre Labastie wrote: Hi, Recently, sendmail has been archived, (see ticket #4723). There has not been a real discussion about that. The reason is that the current building instructions do not lead to a functional package, although Armin and Igor have tried to do so. Furthermore, there are alternatives (exim4 and postfix), which are deemed better than sendmail anyway. OTOH, I suppose that folks monitoring this list not all follow BLFS trac, and it may be interesting to hear what they have to say. That is the purpose of this thread. I've built and used sendmail before. I do have the Bat book and once went to an all day seminar on it presented be Eric Allman, sendmail's author. It is quite a challenge to build and configure. It has roots in the 1970's and I believe it would be written quite differently today. That said, I don't have strong opinions about whether it is in the book or not. We may want to review it in a few days as we sort out other areas. I'm still showing about 100 packages that need to be tested (I'm working on KDE now, but my time is limited today). Perhaps we can re-look at it technically later in the week. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] discussion about sendmail
On 2/25/2014 10:43 AM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: That said, I don't have strong opinions about whether it is in the book or not. I would like to see it back in the book. As Bruce mentioned, Sendmail has a background unlike most other software. The current version still is usable and works fine. There is a reason that almost all other packages that do software emulation of Sendmail functionality installs a symlink to /usr/sbin/sendmail. Because it is the de facto standard. I do realize that life goes on and some software becomes obsolete, but Sendmail is not in that category and is still actively maintained. -- Randy -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
