Hi Yaakov, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > > On 2014-08-22 13:19, D. Boland wrote: > >> On Aug 22 07:43, D. Boland wrote: > >>> I re-packaged Sendmail with cygport. See: > >>> > >>> http://cygwin.boland.nl/x86/release/sendmail/ > >> > >> Packaging looks good in theory. > >> > >> Unfortunately we have a problem. > >> > >> On inspection of your binary package I noticed that we have conflicts > >> with exim and ssmtp packages: > [snip] > >> What we'll have to do to fix this problem is to convert all three > >> packages to use alternatives. The alternatives package exists and is > >> already used by a couple of other packages which would otherwise > >> conflict, so there's precendent. And on Fedora, the various mail > >> packages all use alternatives, too, to install their packages in > >> parallel and conflict-free. > [snip] > > > > You already guessed it. I don't like it. It's getting very messy this way. > > Not doing this properly will be even more messy, I assure you. > > > I'm sorry for the following rant, > [snip] > > Rants and flamewars really aren't helpful. The FOSS ecosystem not only > allows for the possibility of alternative solutions, but thrives on it. > So while we probably agree that sendmail is the "first" and in some > ways a de-facto standard (at least in terms of program names and paths), > and is certainly worthy of consideration for our distribution, it does > not negate the legitimacy of exim/postfix/ssmtp/etc. > > > Ok, that being out of the way: I am running out of time, and I still have > > to do the > > 64bit version. > > Running out of time for what? Keep in mind that being a package > maintainer is more than just shipping a release and forgetting about it; > given the nature of this package in particular, there are certainly > going to be issues that come up from users. Dealing with this is part > of the commitment of being a package maintainer. > > That being said, the more time we spend upfront doing this right should > help mitigate even worse problems down the road should we not. > > Also, the 32-bit and 64-bit versions should be done together, > particularly as we're going to have to rebuild other packages to make > these all coexist. Therefore, it would be helpful if you could start > working on the 64-bit ports in the meantime. >
Thanks for letting me have my rant. I put in my time and I will continue to do so. I think Sendmail, and for that matter, Redhat are worth it. You guys were the original believers in open source software, putting your own time and resources on the line. I still have an original 6.1 version running for 14 years now. Never crashed, never had problems. > > I've read the 'alternatives' documentation and it looks nasty: link > > groups, master link, slave link, automatic mode, manual mode... > > alternatives really isn't that hard to understand, and we'll help > coordinate a working configuration for all the potentially conflicting MTAs. > > > Why not let the user choose one program? Putting both Exim and Sendmail on > > one box > > is confusing, to say the least. Sendmail is very tough to understand. You > > don't want > > another (very similar looking) mail exchanger to add to the confusion. > > Cygwin's setup*.exe does not support the concept of "conflicts" (one > package blocking others from being installed), nor does it prevent file > clobbering if multiple packages provide the same file. Since there is > no way to stop multiple MTAs from being installed, it is necessary to > insure that they do so properly. > > Besides, at least in Fedora, it is possible to install multiple MTAs > without conflicts. > > > You really put me on the spot here. Will Sendmail suffer? Will it dream? > > This needs to be handled properly, that's all, and that can take time. > If Pierre doesn't respond soon, we can step in to help with exim. > So I will not be left alone with this. That's a relief. I'll wait with the uploading. In the mean time I'll update the Procmail and Sendmail code to use the new 'fakesu' lib. About the 64bit version: Are there any things I have to be careful of? Like crosscompiling? Or is it a matter of just straight forward compiling on a 64bit Cygwin machine? Daniel