[Bug 217497] Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: dbmail - The DBMail mail storage system
Alias: dbmail

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=217497





------- Additional Comments From bjohnson at symetrix.com  2007-02-20 09:11 EST -------
(In reply to comment #15)
> Note: I don't understand how to use this at all!!
> 
> * Parallel provides v.s. Requirement
>   - Well, generally I don't know how other people try to
>     resolve this.

Let me tell you what little I know and maybe we can figure it out enough to make
a usable package :)

>     Main package requires one "-database-driver" package
>     and there are 3 package which provides this package

Yes, in order to be functional, at least one of them must be installed.

>     (BTW "dbmail-database-driver-driver" on -mysql package
>      is a typo, isn't it?). Then:

yes!

>     i.e. "yum install dbmail" always try to install
>     "dbmail-mysql" because on using yum the shorter name
>     package, and the alphabetically prior package (if name
>     length is same) wins yum game.

Yes, there's a big "discussion" on FE mailing list regarding this very issue. 
Take for example, "yum deplist redhat-lsb":
<cut>
  dependency: /usr/sbin/sendmail
   provider: sendmail.i386 8.13.8-2
   provider: postfix.i386 2:2.3.3-2
   provider: esmtp.i386 0.5.1-13.fc6
   provider: exim.i386 4.63-5.fc6
   provider: ssmtp.i386 2.61-10.fc6
   provider: ssmtp.i386 2.61-11.1.fc6
<cut>
So now the Core and Extras are the same, guess what gets installed to replace
sendmail by providing a dependency for /usr/sbin/sendmail..?  EXIM!

Now, I don't agree with changing sendmail by sheer chance, but other seem to
think it's ok.  But no one is suggesting taking the dependency out and having a
sysadmin install whichever mta they want by hand.

>    Well, for people who want to use postgresql-based dbmail, he/she
>    can do this by explicitly directing -pgsql package, i.e.

Exactly.

>     Anyway main package requires -pgsql or -mysql or -sqlite package and I think
>     this must explicitly selected by the sysadmin who want to use this.

Yes, and here is where my example with sendmail is different.  With sendmail, no
matter which mta gets installed, it's expected that it will accept mail locally
and attampt to deliver it - ie. it's functional out of the box.

Dbmail can never be that because it requires a) database backend selection and
b) configuration file setup, and c) database installation.

These are not trivial things to do, and if you understand that, then package
selection will not be a problem for you.

However, I do see one added benefit of the requires/provides - and that is if
you try to install just dbmail, it will force a driver to install, which may
wake up a sysadmin to realize "oh, i have to select the driver for the
database".  Otherwise, if you just install dbmail and set the driver in the
config file, when you start you just get a message like
"/usr/lib/dbmail/libfoo.so was not found" and it dies, which doesn't tell you much.

But then again, on the other hand it's possible to set the driver to mysql when
pgsql is installed and get the same type message.

<shrug>

>     So:
>     I think it is better that 
>     * -pgsql or -mysql or -sqlite package does not provide -database-driver
package
>     * main package does not require -database-driver package
>       If do so, "yum install dbmail" only installs dbmail package

So after reading my explanation if you still feel this is the right way, I'll go
ahead and make that update.

I don't feel strongly one way or another, I'm just trying to make sure we
understand the consequences of either approach.

>     * You write "README.fedora" which explains that to use dbmail on Fedora
>       sysadmin has to install -pgsql or -mysql or -sqlite package by himself
> according
>       to what database he wants to use. I think this is no problem
>       because dbmail cannot be used only by just installing your
>       binary rpms and needs some settings anyway.
>
>    For two packages I reviewed, this situation occurred, and in both cases
>    submitters added README.fedora to explain this.

This is a good idea reagardless of the approach.  I'll do that.
 
> * Permission
> -------------------------------------------
> E: dbmail non-readable /etc/dbmail.conf 0660
> -------------------------------------------
>    - Just explain why 
>      * others should not able to read this file
>      * and group should have write permission

it must be unreadable to others because it contains the database password and
login, however it can be 640 or even 600 (it's owner=root, group=root).

> * Documentation
>   - README.solaris should perhaps be removed (because we are not on solaris).

I will remove that.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.