Subject: Re: 2.0 install thing with mail
To: NetBSD Current Users <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Peter Eisch <email@example.com>
Date: 08/18/2004 14:53:27
Build from yesterday's sources, issue still exists:
Setting securelevel: kern.securelevel: 0 -> 1
Starting local daemons:.
Starting sendmail. Aug 18 15:22:25 sendmail: unable to qualify my own
domain name (localhost) -- using short name
WARNING: local host name (localhost) is not qualified; fix $j in config file
/etc/mail/aliases: 22 aliases, longest 10 bytes, 246 bytes total
Aug 18 15:22:25 sm-mta: My unqualified host name (localhost) unknown;
sleeping for retry
Wed Aug 18 15:23:26 CDT 2004
NetBSD/sparc64 (Amnesiac) (console)
It took forever for this baby to give me the login prompt. My install went
Sysinst of full install on a re-paritioned disk
Configured network via top-level menu
None of the network configuration was preserved from sysinst and that period
of waiting for the login prompt seems like forever.
My point being simple: this is not a good way to greet a new user to a
fresh install. Turn off sendmail by default and if they want to do mail,
let them turn it on. This freaks me out even when I know the PROBLEM is
On 8/5/04 12:42 PM, "Peter Eisch" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Fresh install from a 2.0 build as of 1 Aug 2004.
> No ethernet configuration as part of the install loads just fine, but then
> we get to sendmail pausing the initial boot for a minute while it searches
> to qualify localhost. Then I get the advisement to fix $j.
> If the goal is to impress the new user, this would be a bad way to greet
> Of course, I'll just jump in and edit rc.conf with sendmail=NO so it
> doesn't bother me other than I don't get my login: prompt right away.
> My $0.02.
> [I stopped following the email thread at some point, not wanting to rehash
> that, but if there's a screen in sysinst that asked if I wanted an MTA I
> could have said no.]