Skip to content

Conversation

@jafiala
Copy link
Contributor

@jafiala jafiala commented Oct 20, 2025

What changes are you introducing?

Add mentions that sendmail is deprecated.

Why are you introducing these changes? (Explanation, links to references, issues, etc.)

Sendmail is deprecated in Satellite 6.18 and will be removed. To prevent users from relying on deprecated features, I want to update the docs so that it's clear which method is future-proof.

Anything else to add? (Considerations, potential downsides, alternative solutions you have explored, etc.)

Also some minor style improvements in the procedure.

Contributor checklists

  • I am okay with my commits getting squashed when you merge this PR.
  • I am familiar with the contributing guidelines.

Please cherry-pick my commits into:

  • Foreman 3.16/Katello 4.18 (Satellite 6.18)
  • Foreman 3.15/Katello 4.17
  • Foreman 3.14/Katello 4.16 (Satellite 6.17; orcharhino 7.4)
  • Foreman 3.13/Katello 4.15 (EL9 only)
  • Foreman 3.12/Katello 4.14 (Satellite 6.16; orcharhino 7.2 on EL9 only; orcharhino 7.3)
  • Foreman 3.11/Katello 4.13 (orcharhino 6.11 on EL8 only; orcharhino 7.0 on EL8+EL9; orcharhino 7.1 with Leapp)
  • Foreman 3.10/Katello 4.12
  • Foreman 3.9/Katello 4.11 (Satellite 6.15; orcharhino 6.8/6.9/6.10)
  • We do not accept PRs for Foreman older than 3.9.

@github-actions github-actions bot added Needs tech review Requires a review from the technical perspective Needs style review Requires a review from docs style/grammar perspective Needs testing Requires functional testing labels Oct 20, 2025
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Oct 20, 2025

@jafiala jafiala removed the Needs testing Requires functional testing label Oct 20, 2025
@jafiala jafiala marked this pull request as ready for review October 20, 2025 11:49
@jafiala
Copy link
Contributor Author

jafiala commented Oct 20, 2025

@maximiliankolb Hi Max, I'm not sure how to handle the deprecation information. Do you also want to have it on your side, or should I add conditionals?

EDIT: For context, sendmail was deprecated in RHEL 7 already, and is being removed in RHEL 10.

@jafiala jafiala changed the title remove sendmail mentions Add notice of deprecation of sendmail Oct 20, 2025
Copy link
Member

@ekohl ekohl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm hesitant to merge this now. The out of the box experience is that you use sendmail and upstream we haven't provided any notice in the 3.16 release notes.

@maximiliankolb
Copy link
Contributor

@maximiliankolb Hi Max, I'm not sure how to handle the deprecation information. Do you also want to have it on your side, or should I add conditionals?

EDIT: For context, sendmail was deprecated in RHEL 7 already, and is being removed in RHEL 10.

If the application is not packaged for EL10 anymore, I think it's fair to show the deprecation for all flavors in foreman-documentation. -> Please also include the change for orcharhino.

Co-authored-by: Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden <[email protected]>
@ekohl
Copy link
Member

ekohl commented Oct 20, 2025

EDIT: For context, sendmail was deprecated in RHEL 7 already, and is being removed in RHEL 10.

This is unrelated. /usr/bin/sendmail is provided by many packages. RHEL by default uses postfix but there are other implementations.

The reason we're dropping it is that often it doesn't work due to modern anti-spam protection.

@jafiala
Copy link
Contributor Author

jafiala commented Oct 21, 2025

I'm hesitant to merge this now. The out of the box experience is that you use sendmail and upstream we haven't provided any notice in the 3.16 release notes.

Right, but what we want to avoid is pointing from the Satellite deprecation note to a procedure that recommends the deprecated method. I think adding the language about the deprecation without removing content should be fine?

If not, I could add conditionals so that the deprecation shows only for downstream docs and not upstream. Though of course I'd rather not, as it adds complexity and increases maintenance for the docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@Lennonka Lennonka left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We have a deprecation snippet for standardized wording.
Please, use that instead.

@pr-processor pr-processor bot added the Waiting on contributor Requires an action from the author label Oct 22, 2025
@Lennonka
Copy link
Contributor

@ekohl Can we just add it to 3.16 release notes?

@ekohl
Copy link
Member

ekohl commented Oct 22, 2025

@Lennonka I should be more explicit, but that was my thinking yes. If we properly deprecate it in the Foreman 3.16 release noted then this change becomes logical.

@pr-processor pr-processor bot added Needs re-review and removed Waiting on contributor Requires an action from the author labels Oct 22, 2025
@jafiala jafiala mentioned this pull request Oct 22, 2025
10 tasks
Co-authored-by: Lena Ansorgová <[email protected]>
Copy link
Contributor

@Lennonka Lennonka left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, thank you!

Tech ack would be appreciated.

@Lennonka Lennonka added style review done No issues from docs style/grammar perspective and removed Needs style review Requires a review from docs style/grammar perspective labels Oct 23, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@stejskalleos stejskalleos left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

TECH ACK

@maximiliankolb maximiliankolb added tech review done No issues from the technical perspective Waiting on contributor Requires an action from the author and removed Needs tech review Requires a review from the technical perspective labels Oct 24, 2025
@pr-processor pr-processor bot added Needs re-review and removed Waiting on contributor Requires an action from the author labels Oct 27, 2025
@Lennonka Lennonka merged commit 539b9a8 into theforeman:master Oct 27, 2025
10 checks passed
Lennonka added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 27, 2025
Co-authored-by: Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Lena Ansorgová <[email protected]>
@Lennonka
Copy link
Contributor

Cherry picked:

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Needs re-review style review done No issues from docs style/grammar perspective tech review done No issues from the technical perspective

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants