Bug#714634: lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead
On Sat, 2013-07-06 at 14:58 -0400, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> I don't like lsb-invalid-mta, but as mentioned in the thread leading up
> to this bug, we agreed on it with the Ubuntu folks because it at least
> preserves app expectations. It was the preferred alternative to
> Ubuntu's planned move: just get rid of the MTA requirement entirely, and
> thus break compatibility. To the extent that lsb-invalid-mta preserves
> app compatibility, therefore, it's OK by us; not ideal, or even
> recommended, but a valid option.
>
> Apps expect sendmail to be there, and they are expected to be able to
> handle errors sendmail might produce (especially with something as
> potentially flaky as email). The lsb-invalid-mta package satisfies
> those criteria.
Time for a real-world anecdote.
Ubuntu has another long-standing (at least 11.10 - 13.04) LSB bug[1]
which makes install_initd fail. This means that it's not possible to
install services on Ubuntu as per the LSB spec.
If what you're saying regarding sendmail is accurate, then [1] is not a
problem as far as the LSB is concerned; install_initd exists, and this
alone is enough to satisfy the LSB requirements, regardless of whether
it actually works or not.
Pretend you're developing software to be run on LSB-compliant systems -
let's say a program which sends administrative emails to a specified
address whenever certain system states are encountered. In this case,
Ubuntu is an example of a system on which the software cannot be
installed, cannot perform it's function even when installed by other
(non-LSB) means, but does not violate the LSB in either of these
regards.
I'm sorry, but if this is the case (and I certainly hope it isn't) then,
at least from a developer's perspective, the LSB is an irrelevant
specification.
As a side note, I also disagree that providing a non-functional sendmail
is better than providing none at all. Applications should be able to
handle errors raised by sendmail, yes, but very few applications expect
to have to deal with an error such as "this command isn't actually what
it's pretending to be". If sendmail is missing completely, then it's
immediately obvious what the problem is.
> Since we install an MTA by default, I expect that there are very few
> installations of lsb-invalid-mta (perhaps none). So I don't think
> getting rid of it for jessie is necessarily out of the question. It
> certainly doesn't serve the same purpose in Debian as it does in Ubuntu.
Agree 100%.
> I'd even support this as a bug-fix for wheezy, not just in jessie.
Yes please :)
> I believe this ship has sailed for wheezy, certainly. But for jessie, I
> tend to agree with Aaron. Too much stuff on a Debian system assumes a
> working MTA to make lsb-invalid-mta an interesting choice for Debian
> users. So dropping it wouldn't necessarily be bad for our users.
My $0.02 - I agree with Jeff, however having lsb-invalid-mta available
in the repositories for those who want it [sic] probably isn't the end
of the world. So long as it's not a dependency of lsb-core I'm happy.
[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lsb/+bug/798192
Reply to: