Hi,

During the Jaunty release cycle the dovecot-postfix package was created in
order to make it easier to integrate dovecot and postfix. The solution chosen
was to not modify the default dovecot configuration file and instead generate a
dovecot-postfix.conf with the correct options. The init script was also
modified to use the new dovecot-postfix.conf file (if available) instead of the
default configuration file.

While the goal is worthwhile the implementation seems to not be the best
option. Using an alternate configuration file breaks a lot of common knowledge
to the point that an upstream developer filed a bug [1] with a patch to dovecot
to provide additional checks specific to Ubuntu.

[1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dovecot/+bug/511295

Given the LTS status of Lucid I'd suggest to drop the dovecot-postfix package
in order to avoid carrying a non-default/Ubuntu-specific configuration file
around for 5 years.

What needs to be done is to update dovecot init script to not look for
dovecot-postfix.conf and migrate an existing dovecot-postfix.conf to
dovecot.conf in the maintainer scripts.

I still think the objective is worthwhile and we should spend some time at the
next UDS to come up with a better implementation.

--
Mathias Gug
Ubuntu Developer http://www.ubuntu.com

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam

"Mathias Gug" <mathiaz@ubuntu.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>During the Jaunty release cycle the dovecot-postfix package was created in
>order to make it easier to integrate dovecot and postfix. The solution chosen
>was to not modify the default dovecot configuration file and instead generate a
>dovecot-postfix.conf with the correct options. The init script was also
>modified to use the new dovecot-postfix.conf file (if available) instead of the
>default configuration file.
>
>While the goal is worthwhile the implementation seems to not be the best
>option. Using an alternate configuration file breaks a lot of common knowledge
>to the point that an upstream developer filed a bug [1] with a patch to dovecot
>to provide additional checks specific to Ubuntu.
>
>[1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dovecot/+bug/511295
>
>Given the LTS status of Lucid I'd suggest to drop the dovecot-postfix package
>in order to avoid carrying a non-default/Ubuntu-specific configuration file
>around for 5 years.
>
>What needs to be done is to update dovecot init script to not look for
>dovecot-postfix.conf and migrate an existing dovecot-postfix.conf to
>dovecot.conf in the maintainer scripts.
>.
>I still think the objective is worthwhile and we should spend some time at the
>next UDS to come up with a better implementation.
>
This is a complete over reaction.

There is a relatively minor bug with a fix provided. Let's fix the bug and move on. This approach has a year of good user experience behind it. I'm completely against removal with no replacement.

I think having a better way for Maverick is great, but not losing this capability in the mean time.

Scott K--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam

On 16.04.2010 00:47, Mathias Gug wrote:

> While the goal is worthwhile the implementation seems to not be the best
> option. Using an alternate configuration file breaks a lot of common knowledge
> to the point that an upstream developer filed a bug [1] with a patch to dovecot
> to provide additional checks specific to Ubuntu.

So, instead of just dropping the feature, why not fix it? I know, I'm
responsible for this one. Unfortunately, I didn't have lot of time to
work on this one, but I'll do it today.

Dovecot version in lucid supports .d directory for configuration file,
so this should be much easier now. Sorry for not doing this earlier, but
I'll do it today.

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam

Sorry for breaking the thread, but I registered to comment on the proposal to drop dovecot-postfix and cannot see how to respond to an earlier message.



I would like to say that I completely agree with Scott K: https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-server/2010-April/004050.html



We have a working solution that provides better functionality out of the box than Red Hat, et al. Let's implement a better solution when we have one, but don't throw out the existing 80% solution because it is not perfect.



I struggled with inadequate, obsolete and conflicting documentation to set up the first Postfix/Dovecot mail server (on Red Hat) that I administered, and I think that the ability to easily implement a good configuration including SASL authentication is a big win for Ubuntu and definitely part of my decision to recommend Ubuntu Server over Red Hat at SMEs.



Incidentally, where does this proposal leave the effort to add easy integration for Spamassassin and Clamav: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/server-lucid-more-mail-integration



Roger


--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam

"Roger Hunwicks" <roger@tonic-solutions.com> wrote:

>Sorry for breaking the thread, but I registered to comment on the
>proposal to drop dovecot-postfix and cannot see how to respond to an
>earlier message.
>
>I would like to say that I completely agree with Scott K:
>https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-server/2010-April/004050.html
>
>We have a working solution that provides better functionality out of the
>box than Red Hat, et al. Let's implement a better solution when we have
>one, but don't throw out the existing 80% solution because it is not
>perfect.
>
>I struggled with inadequate, obsolete and conflicting documentation to
>set up the first Postfix/Dovecot mail server (on Red Hat) that I
>administered, and I think that the ability to easily implement a good
>configuration including SASL authentication is a big win for Ubuntu and
>definitely part of my decision to recommend Ubuntu Server over Red Hat
>at SMEs.
>
>Incidentally, where does this proposal leave the effort to add easy
>integration for Spamassassin and Clamav:
>https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/server-lucid-more-mail-integration

I think it's about worked out Ivoks' updated version should go in after the 10.04 RC is out.

That's a spec to try and take this integration simplification further. Unfortunately neither Ivoks nor myself ended up with a lot of time to work on it this cycle. More volunteers always welcome.

Scott K--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam

On 19.04.2010 22:35, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> That's a spec to try and take this integration simplification further. Unfortunately neither Ivoks nor myself ended up with a lot of time to work on it this cycle. More volunteers always welcome.

Well, not everything is there, but:

https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/amavisd-new/+bug/524341

Push it, Scott, push it

--
ubuntu-server mailing list
ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam