[DEP-BLOAT] 'sendmail' requires 'cyrus-sasl'

[Enrico Scholz]

Hello,

the 'sendmail' package has a dependency on '/usr/sbin/saslauthd'
(cyrus-sasl package).  This daemon is required for certain setups
only and should not be required therefore.

Enrico

[Peter Robinson]

Why don't you bugzilla these?

On 8/21/06, Enrico Scholz  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the 'sendmail' package has a dependency on '/usr/sbin/saslauthd'
> (cyrus-sasl package).  This daemon is required for certain setups
> only and should not be required therefore.
>
> Enrico
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

[Daniel Veillard]

On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 10:45:36AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Why don't you bugzilla these?
>
> On 8/21/06, Enrico Scholz  wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > the 'sendmail' package has a dependency on '/usr/sbin/saslauthd'
> > (cyrus-sasl package).  This daemon is required for certain setups
> > only and should not be required therefore.

Independantly, I really like this analysis, please continue to post those
findings, it's good to see those point raised on the mailing-list (too).

Daniel

[Enrico Scholz]

[e-mail] ("Peter Robinson") writes:
> Why don't you bugzilla these?

This was https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173315

Packagers seem to ignore remove-dep requests (e.g. ticket above is not
really solved, but issue is not painful enough (I am using now ssmtp on
most machines) to start a reopen-close-reopen cycle); therefore, the
maillist way. I will tell # for the other postings...

Enrico

[Sam Varshavchik]

Enrico Scholz writes:
> [e-mail] ("Peter Robinson") writes:
> > Why don't you bugzilla these?
>
> This was https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173315
>
> Packagers seem to ignore remove-dep requests (e.g. ticket above is not
> really solved, but issue is not painful enough (I am using now ssmtp on
> most machines) to start a reopen-close-reopen cycle); therefore, the
> maillist way. I will tell # for the other postings...

My favorite one is docbook-utils requiring jadetex and tetex-dvips, just for 
docbook2tex and docbook2texi.

Even if you have no intention of ever screwing around with tex, and you just 
want html or man page output, you still end up sucking down the entire tex 
hairball, the whole kit and kaboodle.  I long ago suggested moving 
docbook2texi? to a subpackage, nobody cared.

docbook2txt should also be moved into a subpackage, together with its 
dependency on elinks.

[Paul W. Frields]

On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 07:04 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Enrico Scholz writes:
> > [e-mail] ("Peter Robinson") writes:
> > > Why don't you bugzilla these?
> >
> > This was https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=173315
> >
> > Packagers seem to ignore remove-dep requests (e.g. ticket above is not
> > really solved, but issue is not painful enough (I am using now ssmtp on
> > most machines) to start a reopen-close-reopen cycle); therefore, the
> > maillist way. I will tell # for the other postings...
>
> My favorite one is docbook-utils requiring jadetex and tetex-dvips, just for 
> docbook2tex and docbook2texi.
>
> Even if you have no intention of ever screwing around with tex, and you just 
> want html or man page output, you still end up sucking down the entire tex 
> hairball, the whole kit and kaboodle.  I long ago suggested moving 
> docbook2texi? to a subpackage, nobody cared.
>
> docbook2txt should also be moved into a subpackage, together with its 
> dependency on elinks.

Sorry this hijacked the thread, but +1. :-)  File a bug and write to the
list accordingly as Enrico's done.

[Arthur Pemberton]

On 8/21/06, Peter Robinson  wrote:
> Why don't you bugzilla these?

I personally think this is a good service, though I agree that a
bugzilla report should accompany each of these posts.

[Horst H. von Brand]

Enrico Scholz  wrote:
> the 'sendmail' package has a dependency on '/usr/sbin/saslauthd'
> (cyrus-sasl package).  This daemon is required for certain setups
> only and should not be required therefore.

Sorry, RPM can't handle "might be used for this configuration only" type of
dependencies.

[Matthew Miller]

On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 11:03:55AM -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> > the 'sendmail' package has a dependency on '/usr/sbin/saslauthd'
> > (cyrus-sasl package).  This daemon is required for certain setups
> > only and should not be required therefore.
>
> Sorry, RPM can't handle "might be used for this configuration only" type of
> dependencies.

Yeah, but where you draw the line is an open question. Should all possible
functionality of every package be expressed as a hard dependency in the
absence of soft ones?

[Paul Howarth]

Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 11:03:55AM -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> > > the 'sendmail' package has a dependency on '/usr/sbin/saslauthd'
> > > (cyrus-sasl package).  This daemon is required for certain setups
> > > only and should not be required therefore.
> >
> > Sorry, RPM can't handle "might be used for this configuration only" type of
> > dependencies.
>
> Yeah, but where you draw the line is an open question. Should all possible
> functionality of every package be expressed as a hard dependency in the
> absence of soft ones?

Certainly not. Consider for example that many people doing SASL auth 
with sendmail will need cyrus-sasl-md5 and/or cyrus-sasl-plain instead 
of or as well as saslauthd but neither of those are required by sendmail.

Paul.

[Leszek Matok]

Dnia 21-08-2006, pon o godzinie 11:03 -0400, Horst H. von Brand
napisał(a):
> Sorry, RPM can't handle "might be used for this configuration only" type of
> dependencies.

Yes, it can. On this list the method is called "subpackages". Even if a
program doesn't provide ways of configuring things or linking libraries
dynamically, it can be compiled in a number of ways and put in separate
packages. We do it for years, see glibc.

In case of Sendmail I don't think it's needed to provide smtpd without
smtp auth, it doesn't make much sense nowadays, as the author stated,
anyhow.

Lam

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Leszek Matok  said:
> In case of Sendmail I don't think it's needed to provide smtpd without
> smtp auth, it doesn't make much sense nowadays, as the author stated,
> anyhow.

Sure it does.  I have a number of servers that don't relay at all, or
only relay for certain domains (backup MX), etc.  Only one of all of my
SMTP servers uses SMTP AUTH.

[Enrico Scholz]

[e-mail] (Leszek Matok) writes:
> In case of Sendmail I don't think it's needed to provide smtpd without
> smtp auth, it doesn't make much sense nowadays, as the author stated,
> anyhow.

'sendmail' on workstations is usually configured to accept mail from
127.0.0.1 only.  For what do you need SMTP auth there? And I am in doubt
that 'mailx' (which provides the 'mail' command e.g. used by cron) is
capable for doing SMTP auth.

So, SMTP auth is required for a very limited use case (outbound SMTP
servers) only.

But this does not matter... current 'sendmail' packaging enforces
installation of 'cyrus-sasl' although 'sendmail' works without this
package too. You would have everytime the option to install additional
software which is needed for your setup.

Enrico

[Leszek Matok]

Dnia 21-08-2006, pon o godzinie 18:12 +0200, Enrico Scholz napisał(a):
> So, SMTP auth is required for a very limited use case (outbound SMTP
> servers) only.

You're right. I haven't thought about cron and logwatch, really. Erase
the second paragraph of my message, the first is on your side :)

Lam

[Callum Lerwick]

On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 11:03 -0400, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> Sorry, RPM can't handle "might be used for this configuration only" type of
> dependencies.

Personally, I have an empty package that does nothing but Provide: xfs
smtpdaemon spamassassin and atrpms...