1. 21
    FreeBSD stable/11 branch created freebsd svnweb.freebsd.org
    lattera avatar via lattera 2 years ago | cached | 11 comments

  1.  

  2. 2
    iswrong avatar iswrong edited 2 years ago | link

    A sneak-preview of features:

    https://wiki.freebsd.org/WhatsNew/FreeBSD11 https://www.freebsd.org/relnotes/CURRENT/relnotes/article.html

    (Of course, since they are not final, they may be incomplete/incorrect, but it gives a nice impression.)

    1. 1
      tedu avatar tedu 2 years ago | link

      The mailwrapper(8) utility has been updated to use mailer.conf(5) from the LOCALBASE environment variable, which defaults to /usr/local if unset.

      This sounds like a disaster in the making. Remember the post about TMPDIR getting reset such that emacs couldn’t connect? Imagine the fun when different scripts randomly use different mailers.

      1. 2
        feld avatar feld 2 years ago | link

        FreeBSD does not want any port/package touching the base system. Right now when you install an MTA you have to edit /etc/mailer.conf to make it the system default. Some come with hacky post-install scripts to edit it for you. This is lame.

        Now in 11-RELEASE the MTA can install a mailer.conf in /usr/local/etc that will be honored. If it doesn’t exist the system falls back to /etc/mailer.conf preconfigured for sendmail (for now, hopefully dma long before 11-RELEASE)

        1. 1
          tedu avatar tedu 2 years ago | link

          Hmm. I see the motivation, but I’ve never liked split /etc. It feels too much like /home/tedu for base files and /usr/local/home/tedu for ports files.

          1. 1
            ac avatar ac 2 years ago | link

            In general I dislike when anything has multiple places to look for config files. it just causes confusion when the program picks up a config you didn’t intend.

        2. 1
          trousers avatar trousers 2 years ago | link

          That does seem weird. The diff seems to imply that /etc/mail/mailer.conf is still the fallback. I wonder what the motivation was for this feature.

          1. 1
            tedu avatar tedu 2 years ago | link

            Looks like a doc bug. The code uses /usr/local/ if LOCALBASE isn’t set and it doesn’t really “fallback”. It just fails.

            1. 2
              trousers avatar trousers edited 2 years ago | link

              Well, if ${LOCALBASE}/etc/mail/mailer.conf doesn’t exist, then wouldn’t this code (below) fall back to _PATH_MAILERCONF, which is apparently /etc/mail/mailer.conf?

              mailerconf = localmailerconf;
if ((config = fopen(localmailerconf, "r")) == NULL)
    mailerconf = _PATH_MAILERCONF;

              Still seems odd though, but I guess if LOCALBASE isn’t set, then LOCALBASE gets set to “/usr/local”. Subsequently, if there is no file at the resulting path, then /etc/mail/mailer.conf is used as a last resort.

              Maybe the goal was to allow sysadmins to supply an override in /usr/local without having to touch the base system? I guess in a similar fashion you can drop stuff in /usr/local/etc/rc.conf.d/ and they will be pulled in as if they were added to /etc/rc.conf.

              1. 1
                tedu avatar tedu 2 years ago | link

                Oh! I looked right over those lines to the second fopen.

        3. 1
          drs avatar drs 2 years ago | link

          Is there a reason why LibreSSL has not seen greater adoption? It would be nice to see FreeBSD move that into the base or at least see some hint on collaboration..

          1. 3
            lattera avatar lattera HardenedBSD Cofounder 2 years ago | link

            We’ve imported LibreSSL into a feature branch in HardenedBSD and are now providing a LibreSSL-based package repo. We’re hoping to pave the way for greater adoption of LibreSSL in FreeBSD.