Hi

Do you know if there's a reason why libmilter is not compiled in the
sendmail package under slackware ?
Is it security related or something ?

Thanks.

Antoine

"Antoine Jacoutot" <ajacoutot@dioranews.com> wrote in message
news:bovn94$q6h$1@reader1.imaginet.fr...
> Hi
>
> Do you know if there's a reason why libmilter is not compiled in the
> sendmail package under slackware ?
> Is it security related or something ?

use the SlackBuild script to compile sendmail with milter support

Neo wrote:
> use the SlackBuild script to compile sendmail with milter support

Oh, I know I could do this.
But I was curious to know why this wasn't the default...
I'm not a Slackware pro, but I often play with it and I wish I could use it
on some of my servers but I really can't see where it is going.
I though it was supposed to be a "minimal" distribution toward server use.
But,
- libmilter isn't compiled by default into sendmail (this is a must have for
using sendmail in a multiuser production environment)
- there's no snmp daemon (someone told me it is not an essential service; I
do not agry with that)
- mgetty isn't part of the distribution
- openldap isn't part of the distribution
- upgrading a servers farm is a pain... although with the use of swaret
it'll be a joy soon

I know I can compile and workout all those stuffs, which I did actually on
some test servers.
It is just that I think some of those should be part of the distribution. I
usually do not need a lot of services running.

Antoine

Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
> I know I can compile and workout all those stuffs, which I did actually on
> some test servers.
> It is just that I think some of those should be part of the distribution. I

apparently Pat disagrees... ;-) he usually has good reasons for that. one
thing you can do is to compile the stuff by hand on one machine, create a
package for it, and install the packages the other servers. programs such
as checkinstall, protopkg or slacktrack (google for them) can help you
create packages.

--
Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com
since when is vi an editor? a discussion on vi belongs in
comp.tools.unusable or something... ;-)

Joost Kremers wrote:
> apparently Pat disagrees... ;-) he usually has good reasons for that. one
> thing you can do is to compile the stuff by hand on one machine, create a
> package for it, and install the packages the other servers. programs such
> as checkinstall, protopkg or slacktrack (google for them) can help you
> create packages.

Yes, I know that
I mean, it is not a huge problem; I just only though it would be nice to
have those included in the base distro or extra for some reasons:
- no need to compile / create a package for them... but this is my
lazyness
- upgrade easy; no need to check all software relevant sites
- being able to build a complete server without adding extra packages from
different sources... always have your Slack-cd1 with you and being able to
install a complete box
- clear distribution direction

Anyway, this is by far the best Linux distro I've used.
Since I'm more into FreeBSD in general, I just wanted Slack to become as
great as FreeBSD is...
By the way I think a rc.conf like file for configuring services would be
great.

Antoine

In alt.os.linux.slackware, Antoine Jacoutot dared to utter,
> By the way I think a rc.conf like file for configuring services would be
> great.

While I like rc.conf, I don't like it enough to change the Slackware
init system to work with it. Currently it is very easy to change what
services start up and when using Slackware's init scripts. Simply
remove the executable permission on rc.httpd or rc.sendmail and it
won't activate on startup. Building in a single configuration file for
startup would add much more complexity to a distribution that aims
first to be simple.

In order to facilitate a rc.conf, one would have to write checks into
every config file for configuration information, resulting in IMHO a
harder to configure system. What services are started at boot time are
simply executable rc.* files under /etc/rc.d/ and these services all
have configuration information found in intuitively named files under
/etc. What's wrong with that?

The one "single" configuration file that has been added recently is
/etc/rc.d/rc.inet1.conf, which I think is much better than having to
place configuration information in /etc/rc.d/rc.inet1. Really, that's
all I use rc.conf for anyway. Currently my rc.conf file has IP
information and a hostname in it, nothing more (ok,
sendmail_enable="YES" too, but we've already gone over how easy it is
to control process startup).

--
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise,
Than for a man to hear the song of fools.
Ecclesiastes 7:5

Alan Hicks wrote:
> The one "single" configuration file that has been added recently is
> /etc/rc.d/rc.inet1.conf, which I think is much better than having to
> place configuration information in /etc/rc.d/rc.inet1. Really, that's
> all I use rc.conf for anyway.

Hey, I did not know this
Thanks, I had to hack into rc.inet1 to stop services and all, this is why I
asked about this rc.conf thing...
Regards.

Antoine