From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040116 Description of problem: The sysconfig file for the Postfix package is called /etc/sysconfig/saslauthd. That is illogic; when looking at the directory, one is led to believe that the file belongs somehow to the cyrus-sasl package. Not only that, but installing an updated version of cyrus-sasl from a 3rd party RPMs repository, which happens to use the logical name for its sysconfig file (/etc/sysconfig/saslauthd) fails because of the conflict with postfix. Example: http://www.invoca.ch/pub/packages/ the site is maintained by Simon Matter, and provides RPM packages for Cyrus IMAPd. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): postfix-2.0.11-5 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1.install the cyrus-sasl package by Simon Matter 2. 3. Actual Results: rpm fails due to conflict with postfix Expected Results: rpm should install the package Additional info: The sysconfig file for postfix should be called /etc/sysconfig/postfix
There is a cross dependency between cyrus-sals and postfix. Postfix does indeed use /etc/sysconfig/saslauthd. The problem you are running into is multiple packages might rely on this file and its contents, in fact any non-root installed process which needs to perform SASL authentication. At the moment I'm not aware of any mechanism in SASL to selectively pick the authentication method based on the client. Therefore all clients must agree. Since sasl authentcation is part of imap the imap package installs this file, is that any more wrong than postfix installing it? By the same logic suggested in the bug report the file should have been called /etc/sysconfig/imap, but that is non-sensical because the config file belongs to saslauthd and saslauthd wouldn't find it. What is really needed is /etc/sysconfig/saslauthd.d with config files for each client. But like I said, saslauthd does not support per client configuration. So what we really have is is the question of whether ANY package that uses saslauthd should install its config file. Maybe not, since there is a clearly a conflict, perhaps its best if no package ever installs this file because its shared, then make the sysadmin read the install doc and create it themselves. My primary concern with this is how few sysadmins will actually do that. I suspose the right answer is to have our cyrus-sasl package install this file, which it currently does not, this to some degree is a duplicate of bug #113975. I've added Nalin on the CC list for this bug. Question: Nalin, shouldn't our cyrus-sasl RPM install and own the salsuathd config file? *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 113975 ***
opps, meant to add Nalin to CC list.
No, the problem is most packages in /etc/sysconfig use filenames derived from their own package name: prelink for prelink, kudzu for kudzu, etc. By observing this simple rule, namespace clashes are much less likely. cyrus-sasl could use "cyrus-sasl" or "saslauthd" or whatever, no other package would normally claim that. If the postfix package installs a file in /etc/sysconfig, that file should be called "postfix", regardless of what's inside. In fact, the same file could be used for other Postfix-related settings. It's the job of the postfix package scripts to derive whatever info they like from that file. If /etc/sysconfig/saslauthd belongs, from a logical perspective, to sasl-related functions that are used by other apps, then that file should be installed by cyrus-sasl not by postfix or whatever.
I think you may have missed the issue. Postfix is not reading this file directly, it makes no sense for this file to be named postfix in any sense. Rather a library that postfix links against is reading this file, and as a matter of fact that library is cyrus-sasl. More than one client can link against cyrus-sasl, imap is one example, would you call this file "imap"? The issue is that any process that links against cyrus-sasl will likely use this file. It was probably a mistake for postfix to install it, rather relying on cyrus-sasl to install it. The file is called saslauthd because its owned and read by saslauthd, the only real quesiton is who should be installing this file, I believe the correct answer is cyrus-sasl and the name has to remain saslauthd or it will not be found. It still believe this is a duplicate of bug 113975. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 113975 ***
Then i agree. In fact, that was all i was asking for: sasl should install that file, not postfix. Thanks.
Changed to 'CLOSED' state since 'RESOLVED' has been deprecated.