/etc/sasl

[Ross Boylan]

On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 12:13 +0200, Fabian Fagerholm wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-01-10 at 14:23 -0500, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > I see the library is compiled --with-configdir=/etc/sasl:/usr/lib/sasl2.
> > However, there is no /etc/sasl directory on my system.
> > 
> > Is this deliberate?  an oversight?
> 
> It's deliberate. We could create it, but as Roberto said, we don't put
> anything in there by default. It could be confusing to have it there.
I was confused by its absence.  I thought the FHS was that config files
went in /etc.  I ended up putting the file in /usr/lib/sasl2 to see if
that was my problem (it wasn't).  My backups don't usually cover /usr
outside of /usr/local, so they will miss that file unless I stick in an
exception.

Creating an empty directory is a bit weird, though a number of packages
do so under /usr/local.  I guess /usr/local/lib/sasl2 could be an
alternative.  Also, a little README could go in the otherwise empty
directory explaining what's going on.

Finally. if you decide to go with /etc, /etc/sasl2 might be more
consistent.  Now that I understand /etc/sasl is an historical vestige, I
see why it's sasl not sasl2.

> The history, as far as I know, is that it is an old default from the
> 2.1.x series (for example, SASL configuration for Postfix used to be
> placed there) but nowadays, it doesn't work like that (for example, the
> Postfix SASL configuration now lives in /etc/postfix/sasl).
> Specifically, upstream changed the default behaviour in April 2006 to
> search /usr/lib/sasl2 primarily, but we got a load of bug reports from
> Postfix users who were utterly confused.
> 
> So the --with-configdir is like that for backwards compatibility with
> earlier Debian systems, but for new installations, I don't think it's
> needed. (And if it is, for some specific system, better let the sysadmin
> create and manage it.)
[snip stuff about exim--message to follow]
Ross