Re: [ITP] Sendmail 8.14.9

[Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowitz at cygwin dot com>]

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.

> 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.


Yaakov