Re: FreeBSD port for the experimental release [was Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)]
On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 21:12:29 -0500 Sahil Tandon articulated: I do not usually announce FreeBSD port version bumps here, but in this case, I felt it appropriate. Sorry to those for whom this is not relevant. I have updated the development port to Postfix 2.9 Snapshot 20120102 and removed the erroneous conf/post-install patch that was discussed earlier in the thread, thus preserving Wietse's safety net for incompatible changes in IPv6 defaults. PS: if anyone on this list is a FreeBSD user with interest in the maintenance of the Postfix ports, please get in touch off-list. Sahil, thanks for you excellent work on maintaining the port on FreeBSD. I know what a chore it can be getting anything to work correctly on that OS. With that said, I hope you are not considering abandoning the port. -- Jerry ✌ postfix-u...@seibercom.net _ TO REPORT A PROBLEM see http://www.postfix.org/DEBUG_README.html#mail TO (UN)SUBSCRIBE see http://www.postfix.org/lists.html
Re: FreeBSD port for the experimental release [was Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)]
Sahil Tandon: I do not usually announce FreeBSD port version bumps here, but in this case, I felt it appropriate. Sorry to those for whom this is not relevant. I have updated the development port to Postfix 2.9 Snapshot 20120102 and removed the erroneous conf/post-install patch that was discussed earlier in the thread, thus preserving Wietse's safety net for incompatible changes in IPv6 defaults. Thanks! PS: if anyone on this list is a FreeBSD user with interest in the maintenance of the Postfix ports, please get in touch off-list. Thanks for keeping the FreeBSD port close to the bleeding edge. Wietse
FreeBSD port for the experimental release [was Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)]
I do not usually announce FreeBSD port version bumps here, but in this case, I felt it appropriate. Sorry to those for whom this is not relevant. I have updated the development port to Postfix 2.9 Snapshot 20120102 and removed the erroneous conf/post-install patch that was discussed earlier in the thread, thus preserving Wietse's safety net for incompatible changes in IPv6 defaults. PS: if anyone on this list is a FreeBSD user with interest in the maintenance of the Postfix ports, please get in touch off-list. -- Sahil Tandon
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
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. 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. Mark
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
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 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
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
Sahil Tandon: FWIW, the FreeBSD Postfix port is patched so that post-install does not add inet_protocols=ipv4 to main.cf during upgrades. Instead, users are notified[1] about the recent change of defaults, and asked to append the ipv4 line to their main.cf, if necessary. Sorry, THAT IS A MISTAKE. Sites that already Postfix have already chosen what protocols they use. They must not be forced to take action when upgrading. FORCING SITES TO CHANGE CONFIGURATION AFTER UPGRADE IS A MISTAKE. * If the site used IPv4 only before 2.9 then they must not have to change their configuration when upgrading to 2.9. YOUR CHANGE BREAKS THIS TRANSITION. * If the site used IPv4 and IPv6 before 2.9 then they already have an inet_protocols setting in main.cf. It you require that these sites make a change THEN YOUR CHANGE BREAKS THIS TRANSITION. People who have been around for a while know that in the past 15 years, Postfix default settings have changed over time, and each time, the Postfix upgrade procedure made those transitions painless. CHANGES IN POSTFIX DEFAULTS MUST NOT REQUIRE USERS TO CHANGE CONFIGURATIONS WHEN UPGRADING. PLEASE DO NOT BE LIKE OTHER IDIOT POSTFIX MAINTAINERS THAT BREAK POSTFIX WITH THEIR IMPROVEMENTS. Thank you for your attention. Wietse
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 10:08:05 -0500 (EST) Wietse Venema articulated: Sahil Tandon: FWIW, the FreeBSD Postfix port is patched so that post-install does not add inet_protocols=ipv4 to main.cf during upgrades. Instead, users are notified[1] about the recent change of defaults, and asked to append the ipv4 line to their main.cf, if necessary. Sorry, THAT IS A MISTAKE. Sites that already Postfix have already chosen what protocols they use. They must not be forced to take action when upgrading. FORCING SITES TO CHANGE CONFIGURATION AFTER UPGRADE IS A MISTAKE. * If the site used IPv4 only before 2.9 then they must not have to change their configuration when upgrading to 2.9. YOUR CHANGE BREAKS THIS TRANSITION. * If the site used IPv4 and IPv6 before 2.9 then they already have an inet_protocols setting in main.cf. It you require that these sites make a change THEN YOUR CHANGE BREAKS THIS TRANSITION. People who have been around for a while know that in the past 15 years, Postfix default settings have changed over time, and each time, the Postfix upgrade procedure made those transitions painless. CHANGES IN POSTFIX DEFAULTS MUST NOT REQUIRE USERS TO CHANGE CONFIGURATIONS WHEN UPGRADING. PLEASE DO NOT BE LIKE OTHER IDIOT POSTFIX MAINTAINERS THAT BREAK POSTFIX WITH THEIR IMPROVEMENTS. Thank you for your attention. Wietse +1
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
Jerry: [request to preserve a backwards-compatibility migration feature] Wietse +1 FWIW, I get no joy from making requests like this. It just annoys me that Sahil, who is otherwise a sensible maintainer, works against my efforts to make Postfix upgrades as painless as possible. When people have Postfix already installed, the next release should work as before if possible, instead of forcing yet another learning experience onto people who have better things to do with their time. Wietse
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
Am 28.12.2011 21:12, schrieb Wietse Venema: Jerry: [request to preserve a backwards-compatibility migration feature] Wietse +1 FWIW, I get no joy from making requests like this. It just annoys me that Sahil, who is otherwise a sensible maintainer, works against my efforts to make Postfix upgrades as painless as possible. When people have Postfix already installed, the next release should work as before if possible, instead of forcing yet another learning experience onto people who have better things to do with their time. this world would be a better one if more developers would have your attitude instead permanently throwing things away and replace them with half-baken replacement and shortly before they become bugfree and useable the next one creeps in with his new better replacement signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
On 12/28/2011 2:41 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 28.12.2011 21:12, schrieb Wietse Venema: Jerry: [request to preserve a backwards-compatibility migration feature] Wietse +1 FWIW, I get no joy from making requests like this. It just annoys me that Sahil, who is otherwise a sensible maintainer, works against my efforts to make Postfix upgrades as painless as possible. When people have Postfix already installed, the next release should work as before if possible, instead of forcing yet another learning experience onto people who have better things to do with their time. this world would be a better one if more developers would have your attitude instead permanently throwing things away and replace them with half-baken replacement and shortly before they become bugfree and useable the next one creeps in with his new better replacement Don't jump to conclusions. We haven't yet seen Sahil's response with his reasoning behind his changes. I'd guess his motivation wasn't to provide a better replacement. It was likely to work around some other FreeBSD specific problem. Just because Wietse jumps on someone for making an error doesn't mean the entire list should be pig piling. Attacking someone before knowing all of the facts is referred to as lynch mob mentality here in the USA. Google and read the history of the lynch mob. It's something I doubt you want to be associated with. -- Stan
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 10:08:05 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: Sahil Tandon: FWIW, the FreeBSD Postfix port is patched so that post-install does not add inet_protocols=ipv4 to main.cf during upgrades. Instead, users are notified[1] about the recent change of defaults, and asked to append the ipv4 line to their main.cf, if necessary. Sorry, THAT IS A MISTAKE. Sites that already Postfix have already chosen what protocols they use. They must not be forced to take action when upgrading. FORCING SITES TO CHANGE CONFIGURATION AFTER UPGRADE IS A MISTAKE. The distinction is mostly semantic and tangential to the main discussion, but for completeness: users are supposed to consult ports/UPDATING before (not after) upgrading. * If the site used IPv4 only before 2.9 then they must not have to change their configuration when upgrading to 2.9. YOUR CHANGE BREAKS THIS TRANSITION. * If the site used IPv4 and IPv6 before 2.9 then they already have an inet_protocols setting in main.cf. It you require that these sites make a change THEN YOUR CHANGE BREAKS THIS TRANSITION. Sites that have already chosen what protocol(s) to use with an explicit declaration of inet_protocols in main.cf are not required to do anything whatsoever. People who have been around for a while know that in the past 15 years, Postfix default settings have changed over time, and each time, the Postfix upgrade procedure made those transitions painless. CHANGES IN POSTFIX DEFAULTS MUST NOT REQUIRE USERS TO CHANGE CONFIGURATIONS WHEN UPGRADING. Sure, and I make every effort to avoid POLA violations in the FreeBSD ports/packages context, while at the same time trying to harmonize the Postfix port experience with how it's intended to be delivered by upstream (that is to say, you). PLEASE DO NOT BE LIKE OTHER IDIOT POSTFIX MAINTAINERS THAT BREAK POSTFIX WITH THEIR IMPROVEMENTS. My change did not break anything for people who abide by standard port upgrade procedures; this is in part evidenced by the absence of problem reports. However, I fully appreciate your sentiment, and concern that unexpected behavior due to foolish maintainer modifications often leads to clamoring for help on this mailing list. It is not my intention to override your intentions, or improve anything by patching files just for the heck of it. Having said that, I should have handled this better; I will revise the approach once you've incorporated your recent postfix-install patch into the -current snapshot, and I have had the time to test the impact on the port in a few different scenarios[1]. Meanwhile, I'll try my very best not be an idiot. ... [1] Another reason for handling the inet_protocols default change the way I did has to do with a side-effect that is local to how the port is generally setup; but that discussion is off-topic for this list and clearly of no interest to the members of this thread. -- Sahil Tandon pgp7EYkzN2xnv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
Am 28.12.2011 23:30, schrieb Stan Hoeppner: On 12/28/2011 2:41 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: this world would be a better one if more developers would have your attitude instead permanently throwing things away and replace them with half-baken replacement and shortly before they become bugfree and useable the next one creeps in with his new better replacement Don't jump to conclusions. We haven't yet seen Sahil's response with his reasoning behind his changes. i speak not for postfix only what i meant was generally the attitude of developers/packagers over the last year in many distributions and for many packages Attacking someone before knowing all of the facts is referred to as lynch mob mentality here in the USA. Google and read the history of the lynch mob. It's something I doubt you want to be associated with. i do not attack anybody directly this was simply a gratulation for the attitude of Wietse how he is developing software and a general blame for mostly all developers out there in the last yeas breaking permanently compatibility and upgrade-path's, wasting ressources with not well thought software and wondering why modern computers not much faster for the enduser as ten years before signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
On 2011-12-28 23:58, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 28.12.2011 23:30, schrieb Stan Hoeppner: On 12/28/2011 2:41 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: this world would be a better one if more developers would have your attitude instead permanently throwing things away and replace them with half-baken replacement and shortly before they become bugfree and useable the next one creeps in with his new better replacement Don't jump to conclusions. We haven't yet seen Sahil's response with his reasoning behind his changes. i speak not for postfix only You don't speak for postfix *at all*. what i meant was generally the attitude of developers/packagers over the last year in many distributions and for many packages Name names; provide concrete, verifiable examples; the above is so vague as to be laughable. Without concrete examples, you're merely pandering to what you perceive to be a desirable opinion. Attacking someone before knowing all of the facts is referred to as lynch mob mentality here in the USA. Google and read the history of the lynch mob. It's something I doubt you want to be associated with. i do not attack anybody directly Oh, so it was by accident that you made these remarks /in this thread/? Quelle coincidence. this was simply a gratulation for the attitude of Wietse how he is developing software and a general blame for mostly all developers out there in the last yeas breaking permanently compatibility and upgrade-path's, wasting ressources with not well thought software and wondering why modern computers not much faster for the enduser as ten years before What you're doing smells like flinging poo, to me - and you have no business doing that on this list. -- J.
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
Am 29.12.2011 00:16, schrieb Jeroen Geilman: On 2011-12-28 23:58, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 28.12.2011 23:30, schrieb Stan Hoeppner: On 12/28/2011 2:41 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: this world would be a better one if more developers would have your attitude instead permanently throwing things away and replace them with half-baken replacement and shortly before they become bugfree and useable the next one creeps in with his new better replacement Don't jump to conclusions. We haven't yet seen Sahil's response with his reasoning behind his changes. i speak not for postfix only You don't speak for postfix *at all*. replace the word for with about and feel happy that your english is better than mine what i meant was generally the attitude of developers/packagers over the last year in many distributions and for many packages Name names; provide concrete, verifiable examples; the above is so vague as to be laughable. Without concrete examples, you're merely pandering to what you perceive to be a desirable opinion. did you live under a stone the last 5 years or why did you not take notice of KDE3-KDE4, GNOME2-GNOME3, transition to systemd in a way too early state not well enough prepared in current distributions? Attacking someone before knowing all of the facts is referred to as lynch mob mentality here in the USA. Google and read the history of the lynch mob. It's something I doubt you want to be associated with. i do not attack anybody directly Oh, so it was by accident that you made these remarks /in this thread/? Quelle coincidence. i made my remarks for When people have Postfix already installed, the next release should work as before if possible, instead of forcing yet another learning experience onto people who have better things to do with their time so what is your fucking problem? are you one of these braindead developers out there breaking compatibility of configurations with every update or why are you so pissed off here? What you're doing smells like flinging poo, to me and you have no business doing that on this list if will NOT request YOU before answer somebody that i like his attitude, not now and not in the future - who do you think you are? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
Sahil Tandon: Sahil Tandon: FWIW, the FreeBSD Postfix port is patched so that post-install does not add inet_protocols=ipv4 to main.cf during upgrades. Instead, users are notified[1] about the recent change of defaults, and asked to append the ipv4 line to their main.cf, if necessary. Sorry, THAT IS A MISTAKE. Sites that already Postfix have already chosen what protocols they use. They must not be forced to take action when upgrading. FORCING SITES TO CHANGE CONFIGURATION AFTER UPGRADE IS A MISTAKE. The distinction is mostly semantic and tangential to the main discussion, but for completeness: users are supposed to consult ports/UPDATING before (not after) upgrading. Sites that use Postfix 2.8 without IPv6 have no inet_protocols setting in main.cf. They have never needed one because that was the default. Having to add inet_protocols = whatever for Postfix 2.9 is an unnecessary compatibility break that can be avoided. Sites that currently rely on the default (no IPv6) must not experience a compatibility break just because the built-in default was changed. It is a major mistake at this time to turn on IPv6 in Postfix by default, because it will suck performance for the far majority of sites with useless DNS lookups and useless connection attempts. This is harmful for Postfix market share. Unlike some open source products, I plan incompatible changes very carefully. Where this is possible, this goes as follows: 1) First I change the built-in default; at the same time post-install is changed to make a compatibility update to main.cf that restores the old default, for sites that have relied on the old default. 2) Several years later, I remove the post-install code. If you cannot respect my effort to avoid incompatible changes, then I will revert the change of the inet_protocols default value and go back to Postfix 2.8 behavior. This means that people such as Mark Martinec wil have to jump some extra hoops when they wish to compile in an ipv4-less build environment. That is still better than having Postfix ruined by a maintainer who does not respect my attempts to phase in a major change with a great deal of care. Wietse
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 18:34:45 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: ... Sites that use Postfix 2.8 without IPv6 have no inet_protocols setting in main.cf. They have never needed one because that was the default. Having to add inet_protocols = whatever for Postfix 2.9 is an unnecessary compatibility break that can be avoided. Sites that currently rely on the default (no IPv6) must not experience a compatibility break just because the built-in default was changed. It is a major mistake at this time to turn on IPv6 in Postfix by default, because it will suck performance for the far majority of sites with useless DNS lookups and useless connection attempts. This is harmful for Postfix market share. This point is not lost on me, and believe it or not: I'm actually an advocate of Postfix, so a loss of market share is counter to my own interests. Unlike some open source products, I plan incompatible changes very carefully. Where this is possible, this goes as follows: 1) First I change the built-in default; at the same time post-install is changed to make a compatibility update to main.cf that restores the old default, for sites that have relied on the old default. 2) Several years later, I remove the post-install code. If you cannot respect my effort to avoid incompatible changes, then I will revert the change of the inet_protocols default value and go back to Postfix 2.8 behavior. This means that people such as Mark Martinec wil have to jump some extra hoops when they wish to compile in an ipv4-less build environment. That is still better than having Postfix ruined by a maintainer who does not respect my attempts to phase in a major change with a great deal of care. In my reply to your initial message, I explicitly noted that I mishandled this situation, and should have considered another solution to address the ports-specific side effect caused by the inet_protocols change. Furthermore, I stated that I intend to align the port's behavior with how you correctly designed the inet_protocols change to be phased in. Where in all this do you construe a lack of respect for your efforts? If someome makes a mistake, they are not signaling a lack of respect for your work. In fact, in the context of this thread, your accusing of *me* for lacking respect towards *you* is disappointingly ironic. 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. -- Sahil Tandon pgpAExDgZOayr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
Sahil Tandon: 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. 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. Wietse -
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 19:48:48 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: Sahil Tandon: 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. 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. Shall follow along this new route, or I can modify the Postfix development port so that (happy to modify this as you deem appropriate): 1) fresh installs without existing main.cf use the new default inet_protocols setting. 2) sites with an existing main.cf WITHOUT inet_protocols defined have the ipv4 line added as you currently do via post-install. 3) sites with an existing main.cf WITH inet_protocols defined just keep their inet_protocols as is. Again, I'm already working on making the port work within the context of how you're currenting shipping development snapshots, but am on board with whichever path you choose from here. Won't make any changes until your decision is final so as to minimize further hassles. -- Sahil Tandon pgpnJTskeyC6H.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
Mark Martinec: Trying to install postfix-2.9-20111219 from ports on FreeBSD 9.0 (with an inet6-only kernel), the installation fails as before: postfix-current$ make install ... Skipping /usr/local/share/doc/postfix/postfix-power.png... Skipping /usr/local/share/doc/postfix/scache.8.html... Skipping /usr/local/share/doc/postfix/tlsmgr.8.html... postfix: fatal: could not find any active network interfaces *** Error code 1 How do you want to proceed: wait until I have time to reproduce your IPv6-only setup for which I have no specification, or spend all of next year doing blind testing? Wietse
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
Wietse Venema: Mark Martinec: Trying to install postfix-2.9-20111219 from ports on FreeBSD 9.0 (with an inet6-only kernel), the installation fails as before: postfix-current$ make install ... Skipping /usr/local/share/doc/postfix/postfix-power.png... Skipping /usr/local/share/doc/postfix/scache.8.html... Skipping /usr/local/share/doc/postfix/tlsmgr.8.html... postfix: fatal: could not find any active network interfaces *** Error code 1 How do you want to proceed: wait until I have time to reproduce your IPv6-only setup for which I have no specification, or spend all of next year doing blind testing? I'm assuming that you have inet_protocols=ipv6 in main.cf, instead of the backwards-compatibility inet_protocols=ipv4 workaround, because that would not work on your machine. Wietse
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
postfix: fatal: could not find any active network interfaces *** Error code 1 How do you want to proceed: wait until I have time to reproduce your IPv6-only setup for which I have no specification, or spend all of next year doing blind testing? No offense and not intending to rush things. I just thought that the mentioned entry in HISTORY may indicate that you considered it done. If you want to test it by yourself, either fetch a pre-built 9.0-RC3 inet6-only installation ISO from: http://wiki.freebsd.org/IPv6Only or re-build a 9.0 kernel by giving it the following KERNCONF file: include GENERIC ident GENERIC-IPV6ONLY makeoptions MKMODULESENV+=WITHOUT_INET_SUPPORT= nooptions INET nodevice gre It is all documented in: http://www.freebsd.org/ipv6/ipv6only.html Or I can make available a small VirtualBox disk image with the necessary ports already installed, or provide a ssh root access to such. Mark
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
I'm assuming that you have inet_protocols=ipv6 in main.cf, instead of the backwards-compatibility inet_protocols=ipv4 workaround, because that would not work on your machine. No, that was a fresh install attempt, no directory /etc/postfix or /usr/local/etc/postfix, no previous main.cf or master.cf files. The problem is in the hardwired inet_protocols=ipv4 in the code, if I remember correctly. Mark
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
Mark Martinec: I'm assuming that you have inet_protocols=ipv6 in main.cf, instead of the backwards-compatibility inet_protocols=ipv4 workaround, because that would not work on your machine. No, that was a fresh install attempt, no directory /etc/postfix or /usr/local/etc/postfix, no previous main.cf or master.cf files. The problem is in the hardwired inet_protocols=ipv4 in the code, if I remember correctly. There is no such hard coding, as we found out when the Postfix build broke on freebsd.org test machines Wietse
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
Wietse Venema: Wietse Venema: Mark Martinec: Trying to install postfix-2.9-20111219 from ports on FreeBSD 9.0 (with an inet6-only kernel), the installation fails as before: postfix-current$ make install ... Skipping /usr/local/share/doc/postfix/postfix-power.png... Skipping /usr/local/share/doc/postfix/scache.8.html... Skipping /usr/local/share/doc/postfix/tlsmgr.8.html... postfix: fatal: could not find any active network interfaces *** Error code 1 How do you want to proceed: wait until I have time to reproduce your IPv6-only setup for which I have no specification, or spend all of next year doing blind testing? I'm assuming that you have inet_protocols=ipv6 in main.cf, instead of the backwards-compatibility inet_protocols=ipv4 workaround, because that would not work on your machine. After I made inet_protocols=all the default on your request, I received notice that Postfix no longer would build on freebsd.org build systems, and that it would be removed from ports. These build environments have IPv6 in the kernel but they have no IPv6 interfaces. Basically, these are IPv4-only boxes with can IPv6 configuration that violates the RFCs. These changes were made to avoid being kicked out of the ports: 2017 Workaround: don't use IPv6 at build time. File: conf/main.cf. Workaround: don't abort when IPv6 is present but busted. File: util/inet_proto.c. Now, I can easily remove the first workaround. But that won't prevent the post-install script from adding inet_protocols=ipv4 to main.cf when you upgrade Postfix. To avoid all this, patch conf/main.cf and s/ipv4/ipv6/. Meanwhile I'll see what it takes to add a question to the Postfix install script. I hate to bug people with useless questions. Wietse
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
On Tue, 2011-12-27 at 17:24:57 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
...
After I made inet_protocols=all the default on your request, I
received notice that Postfix no longer would build on freebsd.org
build systems, and that it would be removed from ports. These
build environments have IPv6 in the kernel but they have no IPv6
interfaces. Basically, these are IPv4-only boxes with can IPv6
configuration that violates the RFCs.
These changes were made to avoid being kicked out of the ports:
2017
Workaround: don't use IPv6 at build time. File: conf/main.cf.
Workaround: don't abort when IPv6 is present but busted.
File: util/inet_proto.c.
Now, I can easily remove the first workaround. But that won't
prevent the post-install script from adding inet_protocols=ipv4
to main.cf when you upgrade Postfix.
...
FWIW, the FreeBSD Postfix port is patched so that post-install does not
add inet_protocols=ipv4 to main.cf during upgrades. Instead, users are
notified[1] about the recent change of defaults, and asked to append the
ipv4 line to their main.cf, if necessary.
[1] This is in ports/UPDATING, a file users consult before upgrading any
port. I elected to go this route to force users to pay attention to
this particular change.
--
Sahil Tandon
--- conf/post-install.orig 2011-10-11 20:39:19.0 -0400
+++ conf/post-install 2011-10-11 20:41:58.0 -0400
@@ -790,18 +790,6 @@
EOF
}
-# Postfix 2.9.
-# Safety net for incompatible changes in IPv6 defaults. This
-# requires that the default is inet_protocols = ipv4 when
-# IPv6 support is not compiled in. See util/sys_defs.h.
-
-test `$POSTCONF -dh inet_protocols` = ipv4 ||
- test -n `$POSTCONF -c $config_directory -nh inet_protocols` || {
- echo COMPATIBILITY: editing main.cf, setting inet_protocols=ipv4.
- echo Specify inet_protocols explicitly if you want to enable IPv6.
- echo In a future release IPv6 will be enabled by default.
- $POSTCONF -c $config_directory inet_protocols=ipv4 || exit 1
-}
}
# A reminder if this is the first time Postfix is being installed.
Re: post-install, IPv6-only: could not find any active network interfaces (again)
Wietse Venema:
After I made inet_protocols=all the default on your request, I
received notice that Postfix no longer would build on freebsd.org
build systems, and that it would be removed from ports. These
build environments have IPv6 in the kernel but they have no IPv6
interfaces. Basically, these are IPv4-only boxes with can IPv6
configuration that violates the RFCs.
Attached is a postfix-install patch that works with conf/main.cf
as distributed, on systems without IPv4 support.
This adds one new question to the install dialog, so people
who run automated builds may want to take notice.
To install Postfix from scratch, answer with ipv6 or all to the
question for inet_protocols. For best performance specify ipv6
as this eliminates useless IPv4 DNS lookups and useless connection
attempts.
Wietse
*** postfix-install Sat Nov 19 18:09:16 2011
--- /tmp/postfix-installTue Dec 27 17:48:43 2011
***
*** 147,152
--- 147,155
# .IP readme_directory
# The destination directory for the Postfix README files.
# This parameter setting is recorded in the installed main.cf file.
+ # .IP inet_protocols
+ # The supported Internet protocols: ipv4, ipv6 or all.
+ # This parameter setting is recorded in the installed main.cf file.
# SEE ALSO
# post-install(1) post-installation procedure
# FILES
***
*** 359,364
--- 362,372
html_directory_prompt=the destination directory for the Postfix
HTML files. Specify \no\ if you do not want to install these files.
+ inet_protocols_prompt=the Internet protocols that Postfix will
+ support. Specify \ipv4\, \ipv6\, or \all\. Specify \all\
+ only if you have both IPv4 and IPv6 connectivity, otherwise mail
+ delivery performance will suffer.
+
# Default settings, just to get started.
: ${install_root=/}
***
*** 422,428
CONFIG_PARAMS=command_directory daemon_directory data_directory \
html_directory mail_owner mailq_path manpage_directory newaliases_path \
! queue_directory readme_directory sendmail_path setgid_group
# Extract parameter settings from the installed main.cf file.
--- 430,436
CONFIG_PARAMS=command_directory daemon_directory data_directory \
html_directory mail_owner mailq_path manpage_directory newaliases_path \
! queue_directory readme_directory sendmail_path setgid_group inet_protocols
# Extract parameter settings from the installed main.cf file.
***
*** 520,525
--- 528,543
}
done
+ case $inet_protocols in
+ ipv4|ipv6|all)
+ ;;
+ *) (echo $0: Error: the inet_protocols parameter requires a value \ipv4\,
+ echo \ipv6\, or \all\. Try again with \inet_protocols=name\ on
+ echo the command line or execute \make install\ and specify
+ echo inet_protocols interactively.) | ${FMT} 12
+ exit 1;;
+ esac
+
test -d $tempdir || mkdir -p $tempdir || exit 1
trap rm -f $tempdir/junk 0 1 2 3 15
***
*** 738,743
--- 756,762
manpage_directory = $manpage_directory \
sample_directory = $sample_directory \
readme_directory = $readme_directory \
+ inet_protocols = $inet_protocols \
|| exit 1
# If Postfix is being installed locally from source code, do the
