On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:19:14 +1200 "G. M. Bodnar" <greg@sapheron.org> wrote: > :Another random idea from my misguided brain: Maybe there should be > :separate exim packages: exim4-local (which is the MTA automatically > :installed by dependencies) and exim4 (which a sysadmin in need of an MTA > :would install). The two could share the binaries and only provide > :different maintainer scripts. > > We can take this idea an extra half step. > > exim4: > requires exim4-config > > exim4-config-simple: > provides exim4-config > conflicts exim4-config-advanced > > Configuration would be predefined to provide only local mail routing. > > exim4-config-advanced: > provides exim4-config > conflicts exim4-config-simple > > Configuration would be based on debconf. > > > Having said that, I'm not sure if I like the idea of separating software > from the configuration, but I wanted to let the idea out for discussion. I find this overcomplex for the needs. There are sane defaults for an MTA - that is, local delivery and nothing else. The *only* thing that may require user interaction is where to deliver mail to root@ to. And "exim4-config-advanced" is redundant, just use exim4-config at a lower debconf priority. Likewise, it's sort of a misnomer; the debconf interface is nice and all, but it doesn't result in what I'd call an "advanced" setup. (Despite the complexity of the configuration file, you still end up with a pretty simple installation.)
Attachment:
pgpndtyoSCvSg.pgp
Description: PGP signature