Bug#714634: lsb-core: Remove lsb-invalid-mta as a dependency of lsb-core; require an actual MTA instead
Hi both,
Le samedi, 6 juillet 2013 20.58:15, Jeff Licquia a écrit :
> <hat type="lsb-spec-author">
>
> The LSB is, first and foremost, about compatibility for apps. If
> apps expect something to be there, and for it to act in a certain
> way, then that's our top priority. Everything else is secondary.
>
> (…) 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.
> (…)
> </hat>
Thanks Jeff for confirming that lsb-invalid-mta is a LSB-valid sendmail
implementation. That confirms the initial evaluation I had done when
merging lsb-invalid-mta in the first place.
Le samedi, 6 juillet 2013 20.58:15, Jeff Licquia a écrit :
> <hat type="debian-developer">
> Since we install an MTA by default, I expect that there are very few
> installations of lsb-invalid-mta (perhaps none).
Popcon [0] reports 251 installations (0.17%).
[0] http://qa.debian.org/popcon-graph.php?packages=lsb-invalid-mta
Le samedi, 6 juillet 2013 20.58:15, Jeff Licquia a écrit :
> I will say that I enthusiastically support this part of the change,
> and would advocate that it happen:
>
> >> That's probably where I'd be open to changes: making lsb-core
> >> depend on "default-mta | mail-transport-agent" on Debian (and
> >> still lsb-invalid- mta | mail-transport-agent" on Ubuntu) might
> >> be a worthwhile change.
Le samedi, 6 juillet 2013 14.39:03, Aaron Sowry a écrit :
> Agreed. But let's focus on Debian and let downstream deal with their
> own problems.
Please let me focus on where I see fit; I have put quite some effort in
joining forces between Debian and Ubuntu for several packages and think
it's a worthwhile effort, mind you. For this change though, it's
probably useful to make it unconditional and see how Ubuntu imports it.
Anyway, as Jeff is uploader on src:lsb, and my mind is not completely
settled on this issue, I'm happy to let you implement these changes; I
won't push them, but won't stand in their way either.
Le samedi, 6 juillet 2013 20.58:15, Jeff Licquia a écrit :
> I'd even support this as a bug-fix for wheezy, not just in jessie.
I would be _very_ surprised if the stable release team accepted such a
change in Wheezy, but I guess you don't risk much by asking.
> >> That said, we released Wheezy with both lsb-invalid-mta and the
> >> dependency on it from lsb-core so we would need to respect the
> >> choice of admins that actually _want_ a non-working sendmail in
> >> their lsb dependencies across upgrades.
> >
> > This isn't really an administrator's problem, it's a problem for
> > developers of applications designed to be run on LSB-compliant
> > systems. I can't think of any reason an administrator would ever
> > "want" a non-functional sendmail command on their system.
>
> 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.
Frankly, I think there are good reasons to use a non-functional
sendmail; and installing lsb-invalid-mta is easier than configuring exim
or postfix to always error out.
> That said, I'm not dogmatic about it. If we want to make the choice
> available, cool. Just as long as the choice isn't the default (i.e.
> Depends: default-mta | mail-transport-agent).
As mentionned above, I'm not dogmatic about lsb-invalid-mta either. I
think it does serve a purpose (it's not installed on my machines fwiw)
but won't fight for it, or against it's removal. So Jeff, if you want to
fix this bug, stand bold for these changes and just do it! :-)
Cheers,
OdyX
Reply to: