[TriLUG] red hat sendmail rpms with tls support?

[Jeremy Portzer]

On Thu, 2003-01-09 at 09:54, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Tanner Lovelace wrote:
> > 
> > Actually, I would like Ken to explain what he means by this.
> 
> wrt apache, rh completely ignored/modified/whacked the apachectl
> script, giving it a different name, arguments, and location.
> other things, too, but that's the most serious in terms of support.
> fortunately, mark cox tells me they stopped doing this for 8.0
> (maybe 7.3), but since i run neither 8.0 nor the apache rpm i
> haven't verified.

Isn't this so that the service can be run by the standard
/etc/rc.d/init.d/ paradigm (ie, the "service" command)?  I don't see
what's wrong with that -- it makes it much easier when all services are
started/stopped the same way.  I agree that previous versions of the
apache initscript in Red Hat were buggy ("service apache stop" would
kill all instances of apache if you had multiple versions installed) but
that's been fixed now.
 
> this also appears to apply to rh's sendmail rpm.  i don't have the
> details right in front of me, but the 'to enable tls' how-tos
> say 'add the following to the build.m4 script.'  after spending
> hours poring over the rh sendmail patches in the source rpm, and
> trying a few obvious things that didn't do diddly, i managed to
> get the -DSTARTTLS on the cc command -- and then it varfed mightily.
> the issue here is that, post rh patches, the 'build.m4' file was
> nowhere to be seen.  apparently everything it does in the sendmail
> dist has been yanked out into separate rh-specific scripts.

I haven't ever built sendmail from source, so this might be bogus, but
for most applications it's better to enable a function/feature with an
option to the configure script.  Can you do this with sendmail?  Just
editing the Makefile to add a define probably won't do what you need,
since configure does a lot of other "magic" to enable certain features
(ie, related entries in config.h).

> latest news: sendmail 8.12 rpm needs db-4.  db-4 needs jdkgcj.
> jdkgcj needs gcjlib.  gcjlib needs gcc-java.  now why the flying
> moose ears does a db package need java libraries???

It's probably because there are APIs for calling db4 from Java.  As more
and more packages get sophisticated and compatible with each other, they
need more and more libraries.  I think it's a fact of life, and disk
space is cheap!  But I understand your frustration.

--Jeremy