On Wed, 2011-12-28 at 10:08:05 -0500, Wietse Venema wrote: > Sahil Tandon: > > FWIW, the FreeBSD Postfix port is patched so that post-install does not > > add "inet_protocols=ipv4" to main.cf during upgrades. Instead, users are > > notified[1] about the recent change of defaults, and asked to append the > > ipv4 line to their main.cf, if necessary. > > Sorry, THAT IS A MISTAKE. > > Sites that already Postfix have already chosen what protocols > they use. They must not be forced to take action when upgrading. > FORCING SITES TO CHANGE CONFIGURATION AFTER UPGRADE IS A MISTAKE.
The distinction is mostly semantic and tangential to the main
discussion, but for completeness: users are supposed to consult
ports/UPDATING before (not after) upgrading.
> * If the site used IPv4 only before 2.9 then they must not have to
> change their configuration when upgrading to 2.9. YOUR CHANGE BREAKS
> THIS TRANSITION.
>
> * If the site used IPv4 and IPv6 before 2.9 then they already have
> an inet_protocols setting in main.cf. It you require that these
> sites make a change THEN YOUR CHANGE BREAKS THIS TRANSITION.
Sites that have already chosen what protocol(s) to use with an explicit
declaration of inet_protocols in main.cf are not required to do anything
whatsoever.
> People who have been around for a while know that in the past 15
> years, Postfix default settings have changed over time, and each
> time, the Postfix upgrade procedure made those transitions painless.
> CHANGES IN POSTFIX DEFAULTS MUST NOT REQUIRE USERS TO CHANGE
> CONFIGURATIONS WHEN UPGRADING.
Sure, and I make every effort to avoid POLA violations in the FreeBSD
ports/packages context, while at the same time trying to harmonize the
Postfix port experience with how it's intended to be delivered by
upstream (that is to say, you).
> PLEASE DO NOT BE LIKE OTHER IDIOT POSTFIX MAINTAINERS THAT
> BREAK POSTFIX WITH THEIR IMPROVEMENTS.
My change did not break anything for people who abide by standard port
upgrade procedures; this is in part evidenced by the absence of problem
reports. However, I fully appreciate your sentiment, and concern that
unexpected behavior due to foolish maintainer modifications often leads
to clamoring for help on this mailing list. It is not my intention to
override your intentions, or "improve" anything by patching files just
for the heck of it. Having said that, I should have handled this
better; I will revise the approach once you've incorporated your recent
postfix-install patch into the -current snapshot, and I have had the
time to test the impact on the port in a few different scenarios[1].
Meanwhile, I'll try my very best not be an idiot.
> ...
[1] Another reason for handling the inet_protocols default change the
way I did has to do with a side-effect that is local to how the
port is generally setup; but that discussion is off-topic for this
list and clearly of no interest to the members of this thread.
--
Sahil Tandon
pgp7EYkzN2xnv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
