Re: Sorting out mail-transport-agent mess
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 04:53:49AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> > Er, no, that wouldn't happen. As long as packages correctly depend on
> >> > default-mta | mail-transport-agent, this will have no impact on upgrades.
> >> This can happen if user has 'default-mta' package installed, and it
> >> changes (if it is done like with 'gcc' package now).
> > Ah, ok. Yes, that's a possibility; I was only considering the case that a
> > user had an MTA installed that was not the default.
> > So the best option here does seem after all to get apt to look at package
> > priorities when satisfying virtual packages.
> Package exim4:
> Provides: default-mta
> Package: foo
> Depends: default-mta | mail-transport-agent
> This should be enough to single out one MTA as the one to be installed
> if in doubt and should not cause a change in who provides default-mta
> to suddenly install a different mta.
> Any reasons against that?
Given that no one has come up with any objections to this in the past three
months: no, this looks like a very good solution.
(There was discussion about this again on #debian-devel today, but I don't
think there were any new points raised. If someone sees a reason not to
proceed with this solution, they should speak up.)
I don't think this is a radical new policy that warrants TC approval, so
perhaps a bug against policy and a bug against exim4-daemon-light should be
the next steps?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Reply to: