Bug#508644: mass bugfiling (against 8 packages) and/or new package default-mta
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 10:32:51AM +0100, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
>> I would prefer to create a real empty package:
>> default-mta (maybe in a source package debian-defaults), which depends
>> on exim.
> BTW "mta" is IMHO wrong. In most of the cases (IIRC) programs needs
> only a "sendmail" program. Should we split the dependencies on real-mta and
> only on a sendmail provider.
I think that's well out of scope for the current discussion. This is the
definition of the 'mail-transport-agent' virtual package that's been used in
Debian for many years; I don't think it makes sense to change the virtual
package name because of a quibble over the proper definition of an "MTA".
> BTW we should also rule a minimal set of sendmail interface (which option
> should be implemented). Actually every "MTA" has different sets of
> sendmail options, but I don't yet know about problems.
In practice, we have the LSB definition of the interfaces that
/usr/sbin/sendmail have to support; all but one of the MTA packages in
Debian implement this interface (the odd duck is nullmailer, which
Conflicts: lsb for this reason...)
But perhaps that definition needs some help if popcon can't use it to
reliably send mail to multiple recipients?
--
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: