On 07/27 00:13, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 27, 2004 at 05:44:57AM +0200, Juan RP wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:42:43 -0700
> > john heasley <heas@shrubbery.net> wrote:
> > > Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 12:11:16PM -0700, Aaron J. Grier:
> > > > 
> > > > what's the "blessed method" for controlling configuration for the system
> > > > postfix?
> > > 
> > > There are none to speak of ATM.  The base install is plain-jane.  Many (all?
> > > I didnt look too closely) of the options require 3rd-party libraries that
> > > are not included with the base system.
> > 
> > What about adding SSL support? it will be useful for some people IMO.
> 	That needs the sasl2 libraries from pkgsrc.  Assuming you have those
> installed, apply this patch, set POSTFIX_SASL (e.g. in mk.conf) and rebuild
> postfix.
> 	I thought about comitting this, but couldn't figure out whether it
> was a good idea or if custom installations like this should be handled
> by a package.  Anyone else have an opinion?

I'd rather not see this go in.  If people need more features enabled in
Postfix, I think they ought to use the pkgsrc package.  Having things in
the base system depend on pkgsrc libraries makes me nervous.  Now that
MKPOSTFIX=no works, people can build NetBSD without its version of
Postfix.  Having (well, strictly speaking, it's unnecessary, but having
them both installed at the same time would annoy me) to do this is no
worse, in my mind, than building with your patch or something similar to
it.