Jens Rehsack wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
First, core@ is not the appropriate body for that type of request. Both current@ and arch@ are much better targets. Second, is NO_SENDMAIL + the postfix port inadequate?
The problem I see with that is, that even a minimalistic base install installs things like sendmail, ppp, atm-stuff, g77 and so on.
I really think splitting the base in some sub-parts would it make much easier to do NO_SENDMAIL on my own. So I had to remove each not required file separately. That's no good solution.
So we are back to:
o breaking the base system into packages,
As it's already done with crypto, krb5, src, ...
o either pre-installed with package alternatives to
allow deinstall and reinstall, OR
No, not deinstall. Decide on first binary sysinstall, maybe with writing a template /etc/make.conf respecting the packages you didn't want.
o we are into seperately packaging all mail servers,
picking the current one as default, and hacking the
heck out of sysinstall to make sure there's a seperate
choice item to get one installed
No, if someone decides not having eg. an mta (s)he should know about the risk and consequences.
...all so that programs that require the ability to send local mail, many of them base systems components, can function.
Only if the wrapper is configured correct (eg. for mail) or not, eg. if ppp or g77 is required but not available.
That's what I said in the first place.
So we are agreed.
I meant other. Maybe now it's more clear.
The correct mailing lists for this discussion are [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've set followups to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to indicate my own bias and the total lack of space for more sysinstall code on the install floppy...
Just 2 more lists to subscribe :-) - may local folder list get slowly huge :-)
Regards, Jens
_______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
